FCC Web Documents citing 1.80

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1511A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1511A1.pdf
  • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that ACC Licensee, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17. IT
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1512A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1512A1.pdf
  • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that NBC Telemundo License Co. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 19.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1513A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1513A1.pdf
  • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Fox Television Stations, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2258A1.pdf
  • of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that they provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $24,000 for each station. 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Waterman Broadcasting, Corp., IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $24,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 25. IT
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-455A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-455A1.pdf
  • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Midwest Televison, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-456A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-456A1.pdf
  • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $25,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-457A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-457A1.pdf
  • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1058A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1058A1.pdf
  • Account No. 200732080020 Facility ID No. 72172 FRN No. 0011339769 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2007 Released: March 6, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that RCK 1 Group, LLC (the ``Licensee''), Licensee of Station WKKX(AM) Wheeling, West Virginia, (the ``Station'') apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by broadcasting a live telephone conversation without giving prior notice to the individual being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on review of the facts and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1073A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1073A1.pdf
  • Furthermore, we do not find this to be a reasonable excuse for the Station's failure to provide access to the public inspection file. To condone excuses such as this one would render the public inspection process meaningless. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that the Station apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Commission's rules. Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In its LOI Response, Gaston College requests that if the Bureau determines that a violation occurred, it impose an admonishment rather than a forfeiture. In support of this request, Gaston College cites Tabback Broadcasting and American Family Association, each an admonishment against a radio station
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1271A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1271A1.pdf
  • an equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Mann admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that The Antique Radio Collector apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1285A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1285A1.pdf
  • 11, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 20 months without an instrument of authorization, Imperial apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Imperial also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1300A1.pdf
  • (``Norfolk Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to TPN. TPN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, The Paradise Network of North Carolina, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Sections 17.57 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1301A1.pdf
  • Orleans Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Ace. Ace has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ace Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1312A1.pdf
  • or cancelled because the amount exceeds other forfeiture amounts proposed to broadcast stations under similar scenarios; that KM TV has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that KM TV has demonstrated an inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining KM TV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1313A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1313A1.pdf
  • May 4, 2006, stating he was unable to obtain a copy of the catalog referenced in the NAL from Commission staff and argues that the refusal to provide him a copy of the catalog was a denial of due process. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Vance's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1375A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1375A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $11,000 to Community. Community submitted a late-filed response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the forfeiture, which was received by the Dallas Office on March 22, 2007. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Community's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.pdf
  • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Amp'd Mobile, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Amp'd Mobile, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.pdf
  • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that KLM has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find KLM apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KLM IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.pdf
  • CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Easterbrooke Cellular has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Easterbrooke Cellular apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.pdf
  • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that CTC has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find CTC apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CTC Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.pdf
  • 10. We have determined that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.pdf
  • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that PriorityOne has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.pdf
  • 10. We have determined that Oneida County Rural Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain an adequate compliance statement in accordance with the rule. We find Oneida apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Oneida County Rural Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.pdf
  • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. 1st United's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 1st United will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.pdf
  • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Burke's Garden's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Burke's Garden will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.pdf
  • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Connect's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Connect will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.pdf
  • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Habla's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Habla will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.pdf
  • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Manning's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Manning will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.pdf
  • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. PhoneCo's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. PhoneCo will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1433A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1433A1.pdf
  • By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 5 years without an instrument of authorization, Mitchell Electric apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Mitchell Electric also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1436A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1436A1.pdf
  • Rules, that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, that it took steps to ensure that it came into compliance with Rules after the inspection by the Los Angeles agent and, consequently, the NAL should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1451A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1451A1.pdf
  • without Commission authorization from October 27, 2005, to May 2, 2006. By operating its earth station for approximately six months without authorization, DirecTV apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. DirecTV also apparently violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1472A1.pdf
  • he did not intentionally violate the Rules, and that he took steps after the issuance of the Notice, and again after the issuance of the NAL, to ensure that the operation of the ELT was in compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1473A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1473A1.pdf
  • 30, 2006 (``Response''). Based on our review of Amaturo's Response and the record, we find that Amaturo did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) issued to Amaturo Group of L.A., Ltd., in the May 31, 2006, Notice of Apparent Liability for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1477A1.pdf
  • to broadcast stations with partially complete public inspection files; that Una Vez has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that Una Vez took steps to correct the violation after the inspection by a Los Angeles Office agent. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Una Vez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1478A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1478A1.pdf
  • visibility. Entravision filed a response (``Response'') on July 4, 2006, arguing that the antenna structure is not required to be painted, and that that the top white strobe light on the structure had not been experiencing malfunctions since August 2005. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1482A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1482A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Junior Lahens Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1486A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1486A1.pdf
  • the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Parker submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Parker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1548A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1548A1.pdf
  • of this Act.'' Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered GGP to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice GGP failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1602A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1602A1.pdf
  • 17, 2004 to June 26, 2006. By operating its PLMRS stations for approximately two years without authorization, CLP apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. CLP also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the stations. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-163A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-163A1.pdf
  • the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $1,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Spiry's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mr. Spiry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-165A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-165A1.pdf
  • (``Dallas Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Unique. Unique has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Unique Broadcasting, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-166A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-166A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to A Radio. A Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, A Radio Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1672A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1672A1.pdf
  • of this Act.'' Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered RSDC to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice RSDC failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h� h�G h�G p q r u w x � h�G h�G h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h�G h� h�G O P Q T V W � h�G h�G h6[ h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G + , h�G h�G h� h�G h�G ) * , - � � ... � � � � h�G h�G ", h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G 0 1 h�G h�G h�G h�G h� h�G h�G h�G h�G . / 1 2 � � � � � � � h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G "1 h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-167A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-167A1.pdf
  • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Abreu submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Abreu's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1686A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1686A1.pdf
  • 2004 to September 1, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately two years without authorization, JSMC apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. JSMC also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.pdf
  • � 2.1205(a). See Section 2.1204(a)(4) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(4). Section 2.1203(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203(a), permits the importation of a radiofrequency device only if ``the importer or ultimate consignee, or their designated customs broker, declares that the device meets one of the conditions for entry set out in this section.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 H I J x y � ... � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G `` '' h�G h�G h� h�G h�G 8 ^ u � � � ` ' '' � � � � � � � h�G h�G '' h} � h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G - h�G h�G h� - u v h�G h�G %v w z | } � h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G 6 7 ��`��gde gde he h�G h� 4 5 7 8 � h�G h�G $� � � `` � - � -7 h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� h� - h�G h�G &- . / 2 4 5 � h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1760A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1760A1.pdf
  • Section 302(b) of the Act or Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. Vitec also contends that, if there is a basis for a monetary forfeiture, the $11,200 forfeiture amount assessed in the Forfeiture Order is excessive. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 302(b)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G { | h�G h�G h� h�G - 1 : < F G I V Z y z | } h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G '} � � � � � � h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G | } h�G h�G h� h�G h�G { } ~ � � � � � h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G � � } h} � h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h� h�G h�G D E F I K L � h�G - h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G ' ( h�G h�G h� h�G % & ( )  h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G # � � � � � � ( h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1779A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1779A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Pierre-Francois. Mr. Pierre-Francois has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean-Harry Pierre-Francois IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1780A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1780A1.pdf
  • the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Wilson submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Wilson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1784A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1784A1.pdf
  • were inadvertent and only ``theoretically harmful.'' As such, AboCom further asserts that the marketing of the wireless access points has not been shown to be part of a deliberate plan to evade or disregard the rules. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining AboCom's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1788A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1788A1.pdf
  • Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. Siga Broadcasting submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Siga Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1812A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1812A1.pdf
  • reduce the forfeiture amount, claiming that its failure to renew its license was ``due to ignorance,'' and was ``an oversight,'' and ``not a premeditated act.'' Hare Planting also states that ``[f]ifty-two hundred dollars is a lot of money to us.'' III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1828A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1828A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1828 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1828 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � 4� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1867A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1867A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not currently establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing-aid compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-186A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-186A1.pdf
  • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Rankine. Rankine has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-187A1.pdf
  • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Simpson. Simpson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Elroy Simpson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1883A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1883A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1883 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1883 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 7 J d � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-188A1.pdf
  • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the petition for waiver filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DENIED, and the petition for reconsideration filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.pdf
  • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � ! & ' w | tm � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.pdf
  • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � g l � ' � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-192A1.pdf
  • raised no new arguments for us to address herein. We also find no reason to cancel the forfeiture based on Mr. Brown's decision to discontinue the station's operation. We have, however, examined the financial documentation submitted with Mr. Brown's petition and will reconsider the forfeiture amount pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b) of the Act , Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In analyzing a financial hardship claim, the Commission generally has looked to gross revenues as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick in determining whether a licensee is able to pay the assessed forfeiture. While we find that Mr. Brown
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1977A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1977A1.pdf
  • of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. HRN submitted a response to the NAL requesting rescission or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining HRN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1979A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1979A1.pdf
  • in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Roberts submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Roberts' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1995A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1995A1.pdf
  • interference by the Riverside Police Department. Fed Ex also argues that the violation was not repeated, because Fed Ex was able to resolve the interference the same day it was notified of the interference by the Los Angeles FCC agent. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1996A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1996A1.pdf
  • Juarez filed a response (``Response'') on October 25, 2006, admitting the violation of Section 73.49, providing evidence that an effective fence now enclosed the antenna structure, and requesting that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Ortega and Juarez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2046A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2046A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2046 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2046 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! B } ~ '' � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2047A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2047A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2047 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2047 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 5 p q � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2056A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2056A1.pdf
  • 9, 2006.'' By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 13 months without an instrument of authorization, Doss apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Doss also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2069A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2069A1.pdf
  • warranted. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Jerry Russell dba The Russell Company IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2083A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2083A1.pdf
  • July 28, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for almost four years without authorization, Kimberly Clark apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Kimberly Clark also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2085A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2085A1.pdf
  • Commission registration in March 2002, completed construction in April 2002, filed for tower registration in May 2002, and did not complete registration of the tower until August 10, 2006. By failing to register its tower prior to construction and for more than four years thereafter, Telcom apparently violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2094A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2094A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to New Relampago. New Relampago has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, New Relampago Car Service Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2095A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2095A1.pdf
  • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mobile. Mobile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mobile Car Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-210A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-210A1.pdf
  • Taxicab for the noted violations. In its Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, Portland Taxicab does not dispute the violations but again seeks a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay the $12,000 forfeiture. III DISCUSSION 6. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules require that the Commission take into account, among other things, the party's ability to pay a forfeiture. A successful claim to reduce a forfeiture for inability to pay requires specific supporting financial documentation. In analyzing economic-hardship claims, the Commission generally looks to a company's gross revenues from the three most recent tax years as a reasonable and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2118A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2118A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-211A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-211A1.pdf
  • must dismiss Mr. Oaks' petition for reconsideration as untimely. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the letter petition for reconsideration filed by David Michael Oaks IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-212A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-212A1.pdf
  • for a $4,000 forfeiture as proposed by the NAL. On December 17, 2004, Mr. Gordon filed a Petition for Reconsideration restating the same arguments he made in his response to the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Gordon's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2135A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2135 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2135 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 s t � � *� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2136A1.pdf
  • response (``Response'') on November 27, 2006, arguing that it was in the process of ordering new EAS equipment prior to the inspection by the San Francisco Office, and that the forfeiture should be cancelled based on Gla-Mar's inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Gla-Mar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2137A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2137A1.pdf
  • that the violation was neither willful nor repeated, and requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KSPZ antenna towers, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Sandhill's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2138A1.pdf
  • main studio for KHLU-LP; that HTV will have financial difficulty paying the forfeiture amount; and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on HTV's history of compliance and its good faith effort to maintain a main studio for KHLU-LP. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining HTV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-213A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-213A1.pdf
  • Mr. Clay seeks dismissal of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay the forfeiture amount, and the fact that the equipment has been destroyed or sold. He has provided personal financial information to support his inability to pay claim. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement ``). In examining Mr. Clay's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.pdf
  • access to NPTC's poles without a formal agreement in the event that NPTC fails to timely complete a just and reasonable pole attachment agreement. Complaint at 10-11, � 34. Salsgiver Telecom also requests that the Commission impose penalties and sanctions, and grant an award of damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. �� 206-209, 501, 503(a), (b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1413, 1.80. Complaint at 10-11, � 34. We address these requests in Section III.D., infra. See, e.g., Response at 6, 12 �� 14, 41, 43-44. Although section 224(f)(2) explicitly permits denial of access ``where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes,'' 47 U.S.C. � 224(f)(2), NPTC's denial of access does not rest on any
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2235A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2235A1.pdf
  • sign WQFD608. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately one year without an instrument of authorization, Sakaida apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Sakaida also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-223A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-223A1.pdf
  • KRCK-FM's EAS equipment and failure to maintain a main studio. In its petition, Playa del Sol does not dispute the violations but instead seeks rescission or reduction of the forfeiture, claiming an inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Playa del Sol's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-224A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-224A1.pdf
  • Mr. Martin had made preparations for painting the tower. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin had not provided a sufficiently detailed description and dates of the unfavorable weather conditions which delayed the painting. However, after taking into consideration all of the statutory factors described in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the Bureau reduced the proposed forfeiture amount from $10,000 to eight thousand dollars ($8,000) on the basis of Mr. Martin `s history of overall compliance. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin successfully substantiated a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.pdf
  • Response and the record, we find that Burke's Garden did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Burke's Garden Telephone Company, Inc., in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-230A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-230A1.pdf
  • on Blountstown's inability to pay and its record of compliance. In support of these contentions, Blountstown submitted affidavits, relevant broadcast station daily log sheets, as well as its Federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Blountstown's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-232A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-232A1.pdf
  • tax information to the Commission upon request. Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. We have examined Rama's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2349A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2349A1.pdf
  • M.R.S. in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. M.R.S. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining M.R.S.' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.pdf
  • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 6, 2007 - � ` a c | � - - - � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.pdf
  • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 � � ~  � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.pdf
  • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.pdf
  • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 > > ? > ? h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 (R) � (R) � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 2 3 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 C D C D D h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 b c b c h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 i i j i j h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2442A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2442A1.pdf
  • to exhibit antenna structure #1013937's red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Multicultural filed a response (``Response'') on January 23, 2007, arguing that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on Multicultural's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Multicultural's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2443A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2443A1.pdf
  • on January 18, 2007, arguing that an admonishment, rather than the base forfeiture amount, should be issued for that violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because Gold Coast has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Gold Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2444A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2444A1.pdf
  • the NAL, and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Finally, if a forfeiture is imposed, Payne asks for a personal interview and/or a hearing with a Commission official at the nearest field office to discuss the NAL. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Payne's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2451A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2451A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2451 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2451 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 , g h ~  � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h5 h5 h5 h5 ! " ! " h5 h5 h� h5 h5 h5 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2534A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2534A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2534 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2534 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � .� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2551A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2551A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to L4 Media. L4 Media has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, L4 Media Group, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2552A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2552A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Mr. Konarz. Mr. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 12, 2007 } ~ } ~ ~ kd h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.pdf
  • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 13, 2007 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2612A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2612A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2612 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2612 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 % F � � � tm -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 14, 2007 K L K L h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2657A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2657A1.pdf
  • amount should be reduced based on its history of compliance. Finally, Del Rosario Talpa states that it requested an STA to operate from its current location on October 24, 2006 and that this STA was granted on November 7, 2006. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Del Rosario Talpa's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2658A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2658A1.pdf
  • Seattle agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2659A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2659A1.pdf
  • Seattle agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2666A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2666A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2666 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2666 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 < = ; < -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2705A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2705A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2705 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2705 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 7 8 F g � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A%
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2749A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2749A1.pdf
  • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified herein. We have further determined that Global QA Corp. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2827A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2827A1.pdf
  • machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 (nine thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2852A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2852A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that New England Industrial Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2853A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2853A1.pdf
  • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Infasource.com is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.pdf
  • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 d ��`��gd0 h0 h0 M Q W b c d e i n � � � h0 'd e h} h� ��^��gd0 gd0 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-299A1.pdf
  • Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules by marketing the RMR-C450 device, which is not eligible for a grant of equipment certification because it produces a radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at 11.23 GHz, and which produces emissions that substantially exceed the radiated emission limits for intentional radiators. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3011A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3011A1.pdf
  • to that authority, the Bureau three times ordered Yellow Cab to submit a timely written response to its letters of inquiry and to provide the information requested. Three times Yellow Cab failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� 9 : ; ? v ~  � � '' � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� O W X ] h m n tm 6tm � � � � � � � � h� h� h� h� h� h� gd� � ]��^��gd� gd� gd� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� 3 4 [ \ ] o p r � � (� � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3098A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3098A1.pdf
  • the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Winton submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Winton's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3099A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3099A1.pdf
  • (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Brenau. Brenau has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Brenau University Network IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� " , 0 6 : N f t u v z � � � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� 0 D [ i j k o � (R) � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hF hF hF h� ) * + / f n o t  � ... � � � � � � � � � hF � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A%
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� < D E J U Z [ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� h� W _ ` e p u v � � � � " � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-320A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-320A1.pdf
  • supports his request for reduction or elimination of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay. The financial information provided is a set of tax returns for Rejoice. No financial information for Mr. Neely himself is provided. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Neely's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.pdf
  • Sections 2.906, 2.909 and 2.1071 through 2.1077 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.�� 2.906, 2.909, and 2.1071 through 2.1077. Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to One-O-One iSolutions, Inc. (October 2, 2006). Letter from Christoph Goeltner, to Gabriel Collazo, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 5, 2006). See Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # [ \ � � '' � � (c) � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-322A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-322A1.pdf
  • Forfeiture Order. We reject Greenwood's unsupported claims that it was not in violation. Third, Greenwood asserts that the assessed $7,000 forfeiture amount ``equates this situation with a circumstance in which there is no fence at all. . . .'' Neither the tower fencing rule set forth in Section 73.49 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between an antenna structure that is enclosed within an ineffective locked fence, and one that has no fence at all. In both cases the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is not the maximum amount that may be assessed, but merely the starting point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3235A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3235A1.pdf
  • Arias, Blackstone, to Carla Conover, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated December 20, 2004. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19898 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See Response of Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. dated April 20, 2006 (``Response''), at 2. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. � 1464). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). After a citation has issued, no additional citation with respect to the conduct of the type detailed in the citation is necessary before notice and penalty proceedings may ensue. Id. Id. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07- 3235 Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3238A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3238A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. McCollum. Mr. McCollum has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Thomas McCollum IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G 1 2 h� / 0 2 3 � � � � � ` � h�G h�G "2 h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h� T U V Y [ \ � h�G h�G h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.pdf
  • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Mechanicsville Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Mechanicsville Telephone Company apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, MECHANICHVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3282A1.pdf
  • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that CyberData, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that CyberData, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand, five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.pdf
  • have determined that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, AUDIO-VIDEO CORPORATION D/B/A A-1 COMMUNICATIONS IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3299A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.pdf
  • as the material's sponsor. See also note 8, supra. Although in this case certain broadcast stations actually aired the subject material, this is not a prerequisite to a finding of violation of Section 507(c). That provision states that disclosure is required whenever any person supplies program material ``which is intended for broadcast....'' 47 U.S.C. � 507(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 htm " $ , 1 I J O S T \ ] s ~ � � � � "� � h� h� ] ! � M...�...3(c)$�D̎�(c)�'���PNG �����+tT e�ET``G����v �HF"e� )!��`� �i(R)V�-�H\�yG7Vk/�� �����q��D}� � ��b�y %*s�`6� M�(R)Oߞۺ�-[� � 6J-_@``R j^�A��"� �t�BP��5X�i���>"=~�� B A� �ED�` � � p��K�� �r $ ��I��r�~ެ' �S�V���m9\7v7tmu���
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3372A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3372A1.pdf
  • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 3 unsolicited advertisements to the 3 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3374A1.pdf
  • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Aras Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3375A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3375A1.pdf
  • Industries, Inc. apparently violated section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message identified above. We have further determined that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. , and the related orders described above. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Travelcomm Industries, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 13. Payment by check or money order, payable to the order of the ``Federal
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # $ h h�G h� h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G ! " $ % { | } � � � � � � � � h�G h�G h} h h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...���
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h h� h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G ! " # & ( ) 2 3 4 5 � � h�G h�G h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A%
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.pdf
  • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� O P O P h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3411A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3411A1.pdf
  • supporting documents and provide them to the Commission. Taking into account all of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we therefore conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $50,000 is warranted for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets. Turning now to COI's failure to provide documentation and respond to the Bureau's LOI, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its response would be timely submitted. In fact,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3412A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3412A1.pdf
  • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred following two extension requests by ITE of the required response deadline, repeated
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3442A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3442A1.pdf
  • in the amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) for the apparent willful violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. On November 11, 2006, the Norfolk Office received Mr. Smallwood's response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Smallwood's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.pdf
  • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - h�G h�G h� h�G h�G v w x { } ~ � h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3540A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3540A1.pdf
  • one quarter. Based on our review of Georgia Eagle's response to the NALs and the record, we cancel the NALs and admonish Georgia Eagle for failing to make available complete public inspection files for the three stations on May 9, 2007. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. Nos. 20073248010, 200732480011, and 200732480012 ARE CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Georgia Eagle Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of stations WCEH(AM), WRPG(FM), and WQXZ(FM) IS ADMONISHED for its violations of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by regular mail and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.pdf
  • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone (``Connect'' or ``Company''). Connect violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. Connect acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued to Connect a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on Connect's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave Connect the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.pdf
  • 10. We have determined that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Connect apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.pdf
  • monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against PhoneCo, LP (``PhoneCo'' or ``Company''). PhoneCo violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. PhoneCo acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to PhoneCo a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on PhoneCo's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave PhoneCo the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.pdf
  • clauses 10. We have determined that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an adequate CPNI compliance certificate in accordance with the rule. We find Capital Telecommunications, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CAPITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3597A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3597A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Emile. Emile has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marcel Emile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3599A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3599A1.pdf
  • On January 31, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $25,000 to RMR. RMR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Rocky Mountain Radar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3613A1.pdf
  • an instrument of authorization, Hmong American apparently violated Section 301 of the Act. Hmong American also acted in apparent violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. In addition, we note that, to date, Hmong American still has not filed a renewal application. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3638A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3638A1.pdf
  • the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On June 8, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received M.R.S.' petition for reconsideration on July 7, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.R.S.' petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3643A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3643A1.pdf
  • the proposed forfeiture. On April 23, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order, in which the Bureau addressed the three NALs. The Bureau received Wilson's petition for reconsideration on May 23, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Wilson's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3697A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3697A1.pdf
  • In addition, GGP asserted that the failure to file a timely renewal application by its Brass Mill Center in Waterbury, Connecticut, was an isolated and inadvertent incident and that it has an otherwise broad history of overall compliance with the rules. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3706A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3706A1.pdf
  • was also permissible under Section 25.118(a)(1) of the Rules. Again, however, under Section 25.118(a), notification of such modification must be provided within 30 days of the modification. Walgreens violated Section 25.118(a) in both instances by failing to provide notice to the Commission of Modifications 2 and 3 within the requisite 30-day time period. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.pdf
  • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that River City Wireless has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find River City Wireless apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, River City Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-374A1.pdf
  • Act, and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Citicasters apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify a party to a telephone conversation of its intent to record and broadcast their conversation. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of this type is $4,000. In addition, the Commission rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-375A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-375A1.pdf
  • reduce the proposed forfeiture and issued the Forfeiture Order. On December 4, 2006, A Radio filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture associated with its violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A Radio's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-376A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-376A1.pdf
  • submitted a response to the NAL stating that it had corrected the public file and antenna structure registration violations and requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Flagship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3843A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3843A1.pdf
  • authority at a greatly reduced power, which greatly reduced its revenue. One Mart also asks that we take into consideration its good faith efforts to replace the EAS equipment, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining One Mart's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3845A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3845A1.pdf
  • (``Norfolk Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Wise. Wise has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Radio Wise, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3868A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3868A1.pdf
  • a response (``Response'') on July 16, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture amount should be cancelled because BEC is no longer the licensee of KICA(AM) and KKYC(FM), and that BEC rectified the violation after the inspection by the Denver Office. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining BEC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3869A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3869A1.pdf
  • Larson-Wynn apparently willfully and repeatedly operated station KODL(AM) at an unauthorized location. Larson-Wynn filed a response (``Response'') on March 27, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled based on Larson-Wynn's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Larson-Wynn's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3870A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3870A1.pdf
  • response (``Response'') on March 26, 2007, arguing that the fences had been removed from the towers to eliminate the overgrowth of weeds underneath the towers. Pereira also requested that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pereira's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3880A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3880A1.pdf
  • facts presented in the NAL, and argues that the forfeiture should be rescinded because 3ABN immediately took steps to correct the EAS issues. 3ABN also requests that we reduce the forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining 3ABN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3913A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3913A1.pdf
  • 1, 2004, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order, which reduced the forfeiture to $12,000 based on Delta's history of compliance with the rules. The Bureau received Delta's petition for reconsideration on November 1, 2004, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Delta's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3927A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3927A1.pdf
  • NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On July 12, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Mr. Winton's petition for reconsideration on July 30, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Winton's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.pdf
  • ``[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The 1.2 GHz wireless camera purposely transmits RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h " . / 7 I J b j k s t y z � - � " � � � � � � � � � � h h � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...���
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4005A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4005A1.pdf
  • the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case, which represents the base amount for the cablecast transmitted by CN8 on September 21, 2006. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL PAY the full
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.pdf
  • has failed to provide any response whatsoever to the Bureau's LOI. We therefore conclude that Liberty Phones' continuing failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of Commission orders. Proposed Forfeiture Amount We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for Liberty Phones' willful and repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Liberty Phones' total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response and its grant
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4017A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4017A1.pdf
  • is warranted for the unauthorized transfer of control of Telesphere's international section 214 authorization to Rally. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $16,000 against Rally is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES IT IS Further ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Rally Capital, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 63.03 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4019A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4019A1.pdf
  • of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for UMCC's willful or repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that UMCC's total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response, warrants a substantial increase
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4027A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4027A1.pdf
  • In its Response, MRA argues that its overpower operation was inadvertent, that it took action to bring the station into compliance immediately after the Los Angeles Office's inspection, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining MRA's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4029A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4029A1.pdf
  • Rules. CVC filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on April 18, 2007. In its Response, CVC asks for mitigation of the forfeiture based of its ability to pay, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining CVC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4030A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4030A1.pdf
  • 2007, arguing that there were extenuating circumstances outside of PSETV's control that resulted in the violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on PSETV's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and its history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PSETV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4037A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4037A1.pdf
  • On March 15, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,200 to Imperial. Imperial has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Imperial Sugar Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand two hundred dollars ($5,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.949(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4075A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4075A1.pdf
  • $4,000 for each of the four apparent violations of Section 76.1615. Consequently, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for the cablecasts transmitted by CN8 on September 26 and 28, and October 3, 2006. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL PAY
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4098A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4098A1.pdf
  • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Venali, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Venali, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4099A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4099A1.pdf
  • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4133A1.pdf
  • ability to pay the forfeiture in installments. Although it submitted a good faith payment of $400, as of September 24, 2007, Unique failed to submit all of the required financial documentation and its request for an installment payment plan was denied. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Unique's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4270A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4270A1.pdf
  • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4283A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4283A1.pdf
  • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4287A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4287A1.pdf
  • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4288A1.pdf
  • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4291A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4291A1.pdf
  • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4292A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4292A1.pdf
  • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4305A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mario's Roofing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4306A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Alliance Capital Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4339A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4339A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4371A1.pdf
  • 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for almost two and one-half years without authorization, Five Star apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Five Star also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4374A1.pdf
  • also admits that it did not receive a grant of certification for this equipment until to April 3, 2007. Therefore, we find that MRC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 90.203 of the Rules by marketing 4.9 GHz aeronautical transmitting equipment prior to obtaining certification. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.pdf
  • Shopping to Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (August 18, 2007). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h # $ ) R e f g n o � � � � " � � � � � � � f g h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4481A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4481A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-451A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-451A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Eagle West. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Eagle West has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-452A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-452A1.pdf
  • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to Kaltenbach. Despite repeated contacts by the Los Angeles Office, Kaltenbach has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Kaltenbach d/b/a Metamerchant, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4570A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4570A1.pdf
  • obtaining an equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Ryan admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that Low Power Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4583A1.pdf
  • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Diaz. Diaz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jairo Diaz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4590A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4590A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4627A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4627A1.pdf
  • On April 12, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $9,200 to RSDC. RSDC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, RSDC of Michigan, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nine thousand, two hundred dollars ($9,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4630A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4630A1.pdf
  • 10, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,500 to Yellow Cab. Yellow Cab has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Yellow Cab Leasing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand, five hundred dollars ($10,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4652A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4652A1.pdf
  • at least two Telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that See Through Windows is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4678A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4678A1.pdf
  • Despite this explicit direction, Spectracom has provided no documentation to support its claim of inability to pay and therefore this defense must be rejected. Spectracom's NAL Response does not otherwise dispute the forfeiture calculations described in detail in the NAL. We therefore affirm the forfeiture calculation and methodology set forth in the NAL. Applying the factors set forth in Section 1.80 and Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act to the instant case, we conclude that Spectracom is liable for a $12,000 forfeiture. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Spectracom, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4679A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4679A1.pdf
  • reduction of the forfeiture penalty proposed in the NAL. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $17,500 for C5 Communication's violations of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, C5 Communications, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $17,500 for willfully violating Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4716A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4716A1.pdf
  • argues that it ``does not possess or offer'' fully-assembled AMT3000 transmitters but only offers a service, the assembly of AM transmitter kits made available by the manufacturer. Thus, asserts Antique Radio Collection, it neither violated the Act nor the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 7. We
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4720A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4720A1.pdf
  • has not met the requirements of Section 1.106(b)(2) of the Rules. Its petition for reconsideration must therefore be dismissed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1.106(b)(2) and (3) of the Rules, Americom's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's MO&O IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card through the Commission's Debt and Credit Management Center at
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.pdf
  • with a label detailing the performance rating of the handset and with associated packaging that describes the technical specifications of the handset and the U-rating system. Id. See also Wireless Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. See Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. Id. Id. Id. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). Continued from previous page Continued... Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 1 2 � � � � �@��� � �@��� � �@��� � �@��� $ � ( � � � � � + �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.pdf
  • Conclusion and Ordering Clauses We have determined that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Dialaround Enterprises Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DIALAROUND ENTERPRISES INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). IT IS FURTHER
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.pdf
  • affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS intercept device (which operates in the 1575.42 MHz band) and the 1.2/2.4 GHz wireless camera intentionally transmit RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. � 302(c); 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' '' � � `` � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4907A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4907A1.pdf
  • $8,000 is appropriate for its apparent violation of the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that an aggregate proposed forfeiture of $24,000 against Satamatics is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Satamatics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000) for willfully violating Section 214, 310(b)(4), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within 30 days of the release
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4922A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4922A1.pdf
  • $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 5, 2007, by Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS DENIED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violations of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4935A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4935A1.pdf
  • which to reconsider the forfeiture. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4938A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4938A1.pdf
  • the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Bazile submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Bazile's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4992A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4992A1.pdf
  • ) ) ) File No. EB-06-IH-0824 FRN: 0010215812 NAL/Acct. No. 200832080010 Facility ID No. 10825 FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 13, 2007 Released: December 13, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC (``Multicultural''), licensee of Station KAZN(AM), Pasadena, California (the ``Station''), liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for its repeated and willful violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to ``fully and accurately disclose the material terms of contest[s] . . . and conduct
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4A1.pdf
  • Russell the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. On December 15, 2006, Russell submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Russell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5004A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5004A1.pdf
  • NAL/Acct. No. 200832080011 Facility ID No. 6545 FRN No. 0010028835 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 14, 2007 Released: December 17, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that 3 Point Media - Salt Lake City, LLC (``3 Point Media''), licensee of Station KHTB(FM), Provo, Utah, broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of the facts,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-502A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-502A1.pdf
  • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules and the apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Long Pond submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Long Pond's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5051A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5051A1.pdf
  • ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's petition for reconsideration of the February 6, 2007 Forfeiture Order IS hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. Payment of the $10,000 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5084A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5084A1.pdf
  • 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the request for reconsideration filed by Florida Food Products, Inc. IS DENIED. 6. Payment of the three thousand dollar ($3,000) forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5090A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5090A1.pdf
  • because its actions were not ``willful'' under Section 301 of the Act. It also asserts that the Commission is barred from assessing a forfeiture for violation of Section 1.949(a) (failure to file a timely renewal application) on statute of limitations grounds. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5105A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5105A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $23,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $23,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5107A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5107A1.pdf
  • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-548A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-548A1.pdf
  • dispute the measurements made by the Honolulu agents. Instead, Visionary argues that it did not willfully violate the Commission's RFR rules, and that it believed, in good faith, its site was in a remote non-accessible area with adequate warning signs. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Visionary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-549A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-549A1.pdf
  • general population limits. Entravision also argues that the alleged violation was neither willful nor repeated, and that it made good faith efforts to comply with the requests made by Tampa Office agents during and after the inspections conducted by that office. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-550A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-550A1.pdf
  • the penthouse roof; that the alleged violation was not willful, as Infinity had no prior knowledge of the RFR violations at the Park Tower site; and that the Tampa Office incorrectly assessed an upward adjustment of the forfeiture amount against Infinity. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Infinity's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-559A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-559A1.pdf
  • Toussaint stated in the response that documentation in support of his request would be submitted under separate cover. To date, no such documentation has been submitted. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,Gary Toussaint IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 301. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-643A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-643A1.pdf
  • continue operations. By operating its earth station for approximately nine months without an instrument of authorization, La Carpa has apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. La Carpa also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.pdf
  • rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between telecommunications service providers. Accordingly, we find that
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-673A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-673A1.pdf
  • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Duckworth submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Duckworth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-811A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-811A1.pdf
  • Order. The Enforcement Bureau reduced the forfeiture amount from $21,000 to $16,800, based on 127, Inc.'s history of compliance with the Rules. 127, Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining 127, Inc.'s petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-862A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-862A1.pdf
  • that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo's Petition for Reconsideration, filed February 13, 2006, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-870A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-870A1.pdf
  • mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Finally, we also decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture based on WADV's history of compliance. WADV previously has received three Notices of Violation, two of which included violations for over-powered operation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, WADV Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-879A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-879A1.pdf
  • however, that imposition of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship on him and his spouse. In support of his inability to pay claim, Mr. Granda submitted federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act , and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Granda's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-881A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-881A1.pdf
  • in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Mr. Metzger submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Metzger's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-882A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-882A1.pdf
  • repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Rama submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its remedial good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Rama's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-885A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-885A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-885 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-885 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ? @ N o � " � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-893A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-893A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-893 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-893 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 . O � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A%
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-894A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-894A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-894 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-894 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � $ � � � � � 2� � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-896A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-896A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-896 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-896 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 P c } � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-897A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-897A1.pdf
  • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-897 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-897 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � " � � � � � 3� � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-903A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-903A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-903 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-903 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & \ o � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-904A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-904A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-904 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-904 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 . O � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-905A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-905A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-905 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-905 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - - N � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-908A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-908A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-908 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-908 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( I � ... � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-925A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-925A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-925 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-925 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # $ 2 S � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-926A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-926A1.pdf
  • is beyond the parameters of the station's authorization. Lockheed Martin concedes that it operated earth station E970322 without Commission authorization constantly and regularly from April 4, 2006 through June 7, 2006. By operating its earth station without authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-929A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-929A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-929 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-929 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h / 0 > _ � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-930A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-930A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-930 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-930 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � * � � � 1� � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-931A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-931A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-931 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-931 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 + , : [ - - � (R) D � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-932A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-932A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-932 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-932 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) 7 X `` '' � " -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A%
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-934A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-934A1.pdf
  • that were previously considered and rejected will be denied. Farmworkers raises four arguments in its Petition, which we address in turn. In its first argument, Farmworkers alleges that the Western Region erred in assessing the ``maximum forfeiture'' of $8,000 for what was ``clearly a mistake.'' Farmworkers argues that the Forfeiture Order cites to its logging violations and states that Section 1.80 of the Rules requires only a $1,000 forfeiture amount for logging violations. We disagree. Section 1.80 of the Rules lists $8,000 as the base, and not the maximum, forfeiture for ``EAS equipment not installed or operational.'' As the Western Region determined in the Forfeiture Order, Farmworkers failed to produce ``evidence to refute the San Diego Office's finding that no audio
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-935A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-935A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-935 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-935 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h ) J ... � � � h � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-946A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-946A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-946 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-946 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F�
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-957A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-957A1.pdf
  • conclude that the violation here primarily occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive and that the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-958A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-958A1.pdf
  • Entercom apparently violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Entercom attributes these violations to employee error. Inadvertence or employee oversight does not excuse Entercom from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. Licensees are responsible for the actions of their employees. 8. The statutory maximum forfeiture for Entercom's apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 is $32,500. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the contest rule is $4,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-959A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-959A1.pdf
  • NAL Account No. 200732080019 FRN No. 0008130353 Facility ID No. 73259 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 2, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), Licensee of Station WMGO(AM), Canton, Mississippi (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, and later broadcasting that telephone conversation, without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-960A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-960A1.pdf
  • may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that CBS Radio Inc. of Philadelphia, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, CBS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-962A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-962A1.pdf
  • in this case. Specifically, we conclude that the violation occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive or to favor a particular contestant or class of contestants. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Access 1 New Jersey License Company, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-970A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-970A1.pdf
  • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-970 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-970 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - A w � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-971A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-971A1.pdf
  • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-971 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-971 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 0 1 L M O S ] � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-972A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-972A1.pdf
  • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-972 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-972 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) * + N O j k q r � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-973A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-973A1.pdf
  • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-973 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-973 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! " # F G b c i j � � � � / � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-974A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-974A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-974 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 * e f | } �@��� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-975A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-975A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-975 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-975 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 < < < < < � � � � � � < < < < � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|}
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-976A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-976A1.pdf
  • his response to the NAL, Truatt reports that WTBQ's EAS equipment is fully operational and that the partial repairs he made to the equipment prior to the agent's inspection warrant a reduction in the forfeiture. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-977A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-977A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-977 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-977 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � - � � 1� � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-978A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-978A1.pdf
  • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-978 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-978 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 + L � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-979A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-979A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-979 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-979 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-980A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-980A1.pdf
  • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-980 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-980 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) ' ) / A B C f g � � � � � � 6) � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-983A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-983A1.pdf
  • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-983 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-983 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 < T � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-984A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-984A1.pdf
  • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-984 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-984 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-986A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-986A1.pdf
  • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-986 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-986 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-988A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-988A1.pdf
  • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-988 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-988 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ` ' � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-103A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-103A1.pdf
  • repeated violation of Section 17.1125(a) of the Rules and the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Claro submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Claro's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1057A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1057A1.pdf
  • telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1069A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1069A1.pdf
  • tax returns from 2004 and 2005 reflecting gross revenues and contributions from October 1, 2004 through September 31, 2006; a statement reflecting the current account status of Side by Side; and an Unpaid Bills Detail as of February 29, 2008. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1070A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1070A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Whitley. Whitley has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Trevor Whitely IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Trevor Whitley at
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1073A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1073A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Clemons. Clemons has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Charles Clemons IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Charles Clemons at
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1092A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1092A1.pdf
  • (``Christian Voice''), licensee of formerly noncommercial educational television Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arises from a complaint filed with the Commission in September 2003, alleging that then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM) broadcast prohibited underwriting announcements during the month of August 2003. In April 2004, after the complaint had been filed, but before the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') had inquired into this matter, Christian Voice sought to modify its station's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1093A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1093A1.pdf
  • FCC license or authorization from a licensed cellular or PCS provider is required to operate its devices, it was obligated to respond fully and completely to the Bureau's inquiry. Therefore, Digital Antenna's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-112A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-112A1.pdf
  • potential sources of income. We have reviewed the personal income tax returns submitted by Ramos and we find that the forfeiture represents a percentage of gross income that falls within the range that has been found acceptable. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eliandro B. Ramos IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1143A1.pdf
  • Forfeiture to ASA in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a). ASA submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining ASA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1187A1.pdf
  • of public service, which should mitigate the forfeiture, that the statutory factors requires reduction of the forfeiture, that the fine is disproportionate to the nature of the offense, and that Southern does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1188A1.pdf
  • filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on January 16, 2008. In their Response, the Campos argue that they were not aware of the severity of the violations, and that they do not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1189A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1189A1.pdf
  • in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Ross submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Ross' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1190A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1190A1.pdf
  • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Phillips. Phillips has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Phillips Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Phillips Broadcasting, LLC
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.pdf
  • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.pdf
  • the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.pdf
  • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 '' `` '' � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1209A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1209A1.pdf
  • of the Rules, that it took steps to remedy the violation as soon as it was notified of it, that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1225A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1225A1.pdf
  • to its failure to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership if antenna structure number 1023390, Western Slope argues that its violation resulted in no harm and that the forfeiture should be cancelled in favor of an admonishment. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1226A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1226A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Action. Despite evidence that Action received the NAL, Action has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Action Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Action Communications, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1291A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1291A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1299A1.pdf
  • forfeiture for inability to pay, stating that he lives on a fixed income and is disabled. In support of his claim of inability to pay, on February 19, 2008, Mr. Ryan submitted financial documentation for the years 2007, 2006 and 2005. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 302(b)
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1314A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1314A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1346A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1346A1.pdf
  • Account No. 200832080089 Facility ID No. 29911 FRN No. 0011343191 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 9, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that ProActive Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KQQB-FM, Newport, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast and later broadcasting that telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based upon our review
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf
  • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Global Access's failure to respond to the Commission's Notice as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Global Access will have an opportunity to submit evidence and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1369A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1369A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1373A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1373A1.pdf
  • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1376A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1376A1.pdf
  • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1382A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1382A1.pdf
  • delivering at least two telephone solicitations to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2),
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1383A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Locators, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Locators, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1385A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that First Alliance Security is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that First Alliance Security is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1387A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1387A1.pdf
  • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1388A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1388A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1389A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1389A1.pdf
  • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Modena Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1394A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1394A1.pdf
  • for Forfeiture to Omni in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a). Omni submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Omni's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1395A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1395A1.pdf
  • amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Broadcasters submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Broadcasters' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1398A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1398A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1423A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1424A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1435A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1435A1.pdf
  • On January 17, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') reduced the forfeiture based on Claro's history of compliance with the rules and released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Claro's petition for reconsideration on February 19, 2008, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Claro's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-143A1.pdf
  • we remind Ms. Rodriguez that prior knowledge of the law is not necessary in determining whether a violation existed. As a licensee, Ms. Rodriguez will be held responsible for any future violations of the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Family Car Service, Inc. is HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Lillian Rodriguez at her address of record and to counsel for Lillian Rodriguez at his address of record.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.pdf
  • This TV has only an `analog' broadcast tuner so will require a converter box after February 17, 2009 to receive over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna, because of the transition to digital broadcasting on that date. (It should continue to work as before with cable and satellite TV systems, gaming consoles, VCRs, DVD players, and similar products.). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) w x y z � (R) � � y z (R) � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1460A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1460A1.pdf
  • the relevant factors when assessing the forfeiture to One Mart. The Commission has already determined that the ``adjustment criteria listed in . . . the guidelines reflect the factors outlined in the statute.'' For forfeitures assessed under Section 503 of the Act, as this one is, the adjustment factors included by the Commission in its downward adjustment criteria, in Section 1.80, are: (1) minor violation; (2) good faith or voluntary disclosure; (3) history of compliance; and (4) inability to pay. We find that the Region properly considered the downward adjustment criteria and concluded that One Mart's violation, which consisted of KEVT(AM) failure to ensure the operational readiness of its EAS equipment from November 2005 through August 2006, and its acknowledgment that
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1468A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1468A1.pdf
  • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that General Equipment & Supply is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1471A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1471A1.pdf
  • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Clouden. Clouden has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Richard Clouden IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Richard Clouden at his address of record. FEDERAL
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-14A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-14A1.pdf
  • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1505A1.pdf
  • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $18,000 to Mr. Doe. Mr. Doe has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, John Doe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violation of Sections 301 and 325 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Doe will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1508A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1508A1.pdf
  • ($24,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.845 of the Rules and the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Halifax submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Halifax's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1510A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1510A1.pdf
  • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Rodriguez. Rodriguez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Frank Rodriguez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Frank Rodriguez at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1528A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1528A1.pdf
  • (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $12,000 to D-Mitch. D-Mitch has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, D-Mitch Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. D-Mitch will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.pdf
  • be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS Blocker (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. � 302(c); 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 / - . 0 3 ?
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1565A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1565A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1566A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1566A1.pdf
    • a danger to the public. The chief engineer further states that he is not sure exactly how the gate became open, but believes that it may have resulted from a rotten gate latch that blew open from snow and wind. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Radio Plus's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1598A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1598A1.pdf
    • NAL/Acct. No. 200832080090 Facility ID No. 34421 FRN No. 0010028835 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 7, 2008 Released: July 7, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Capstar'' or ``Licensee''), former licensee of Station KFGO(AM), Fargo, North Dakota (the ``Station''), broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1605A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1605A1.pdf
    • process of assembling and prioritizing creditors' claims against Twin Towers Broadcasting, Inc. Owner asserts that requiring full payment of the forfeiture would harm innocent creditors. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we cancel the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to David Ryder, Receiver for violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules IS HEREBY CANCELED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to David Ryder, Receiver at his address of record.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1628A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1628A1.pdf
    • because there was no deception to the public. CBS also argues that the Commission should impose a burden on the complainant to show that he listened to the Station even though his address is outside the Station's listener area contours. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1647A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1647A1.pdf
    • authorization (``STA'') on December 10, 2006, and that, since that time, it has assumed that the request would be answered by the FCC. Christian Family Network also claims that it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Christian Family Network's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1670A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1670A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.pdf
    • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Ryzex's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2003, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Ryzex's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ryzex marketed two models of improperly labeled PDTs, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and PDT6846, within the past year. Ryzex's marketing of each of these two improperly labeled models
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1680A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1680A1.pdf
    • license, E000584, to among other things, re-license the antennas previously associated with E970116. On January 23, 2008, the International Bureau granted ABS-CBN's modification application for earth station E000584. Also in its Response, ABS-CBN requests that we forego assessing a forfeiture in this case, or alternatively, assess a forfeiture that is substantially less than the base forfeiture amount established in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. In arguing for mitigation, ABS-CBN states that until the instant proceeding, it continuously operated all of its earth stations in full compliance with the Commission's rules and has never been subject to a Commission enforcement action related to the operation of its earth stations. ABS-CBN also asserts that during the period of unauthorized operation it did
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.pdf
    • Extended Coverage High Frequency Transceivers, Public Notice 62882, 1996 WL 242469, available at <> (OET, rel. May 13, 1996) (``Notice''). Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. Under Section 2.1205, the required declaration may be filed electronically. In addition, the specific import conditions are set forth in Section 2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h C D j � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1686A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1686A1.pdf
    • machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-168A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-168A1.pdf
    • 2005. Moreover, Able Infosat admits that it continued to operate until it filed an STA request and an application on April 20, 2007. Thus, it appears that Able Infosat violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating its VSAT system in the United States without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1706A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1706A1.pdf
    • Friendship in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Friendship submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Friendship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1708A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1708A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-170A1.pdf
    • when Side by Side filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Side by Side violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1717A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1717A1.pdf
    • Radio asserts that the November 28th incident was an ``isolated'' occurrence and ``is not part of a larger pattern.'' Additionally, Cox Radio asserts that it has retrained its studio operators on the transmission and reception of EAS tests and alerts to ensure that the events of November 28, 2007, are not repeated. dISCUSSION Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-174A1.pdf
    • some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the respondent's current financial status. Despite this explicit direction, Discovery has provided no documentation to support its claim that payment of the forfeiture will be burdensome. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Discovery Transportation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1750A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1750A1.pdf
    • E872070 without Commission authority after August 28, 2007. By operating earth station E872070 without Commission authorization, Saga apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Saga also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1753A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1753A1.pdf
    • Rules regarding the CB radio service. We caution Barber that failure to allow this inspection by the Portland Resident Agent Office will result in further sanctions and forfeitures for violation of Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jeremy William Barber, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 303(n) of the Act, and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Jeremy William Barber shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1754A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1754A1.pdf
    • violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Kersnowski and his counsel received the NAL, Kersnowski has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael T. Kersnowski, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Michael T. Kersnowski shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1755A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1755A1.pdf
    • cancelled because the KBMS antenna towers comply with Section 73.49 of the Rules. Bennett Broadcasting also argues that it did not willfully violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Bennett Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1757A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1757A1.pdf
    • that its authorization did not expire by operation of Section 312(g) of the Act; that it had authority to operate KTMN pursuant to Section 307(c) of the Act; and that it does not have sufficient revenue to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A-O's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-175A1.pdf
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Grinton. Despite repeated contacts by the Seattle Office, Grinton has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, James J. Grinton, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 97.113(b) and Section 97.119(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-176A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-176A1.pdf
    • thousand dollars ($15,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules. First Baptist submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining First Baptist's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1782A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1782A1.pdf
    • failing to maintain a complete public inspection file, in violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MBR received the NAL, MBR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, MBR Licensee, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. MBR Licensee, LLC, shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1828A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1828A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-182A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-182A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.pdf
    • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Cardinal's conduct has continued over a period that began during March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Cardinal's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 9.5(b) of the Rules. The Commission has, nevertheless, found that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1921A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1921A1.pdf
    • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cardinal, the statutory maximum is $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. The Commission has imposed the statutory maximum penalty against common carriers for the intentional provision of incorrect material factual information. Because
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1937A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1937A1.pdf
    • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Microboards' conduct has continued over a period that began on March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Microboards' apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1951A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1951A1.pdf
    • Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Leetek's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Leetek's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for marketing unauthorized equipment. In this case, Leetek marketed two models of unauthorized pager transmitter systems. Leetek's marketing of each of these unauthorized models is a separate, continuing violation. Based on the record of this proceeding and application of the statutory factors listed above, we propose a forfeiture of $14,000
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.pdf
    • the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DCS's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2005 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DCS's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. As set forth in the confidential Appendix, DCS apparently marketed PDTs that were not labeled in accordance with Sections 2.909(d) and 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules. Although it is clear from the record that DCS has marketed such PDTs within the applicable one-year statute
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.pdf
    • a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude that Oceanic is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(c) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1961A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1961A1.pdf
    • forth above to the facts of this case, we conclude that LCD Digital is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $16,000 for failing to fully comply with the Consumer Alert labeling requirements in Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, LCD Digital Electronics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for violations of Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1969A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1969A1.pdf
    • 12, 2008. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately six years without Commission authorization, Mathews Readymix apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Mathews Readymix also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1987A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1987A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. However, the Commission has substantial discretion in proposing forfeitures and has stressed that digital signal reception capability is of critical importance to a successful digital transition for the nation. In its previous DTV tuner cases, the Commission concluded that applying a proposed forfeiture
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2042A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2042A1.pdf
    • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CoachComm's conduct has continued over a period that began in May 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CoachComm's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. CoachComm marketed unauthorized radio frequency equipment. Specifically, CoachComm marketed one system that included the same RF transmitter in both the wireless headsets and command stations. For the apparent marketing of this
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.pdf
    • provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 u v � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2060A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2060A1.pdf
    • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Kissi. Despite evidence that Kissi received the NAL, Kissi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Alexander Kissi at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2061A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2061A1.pdf
    • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Louis. Despite evidence that Louis received the NAL, Louis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Yvon Louis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Yvon Louis at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.pdf
    • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 o p o p � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2085A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2085A1.pdf
    • did not submit a response to the NAL, and on June 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. Mr. Doe, however, did submit a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Doe's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2086A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2086A1.pdf
    • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. New World submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining New World's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2087A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2087A1.pdf
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mr. Aulabaugh. Mr. Aulabaugh has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mark V. Aulabaugh IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Aulabaugh will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2093A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2093A1.pdf
    • for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of Section 54.418(a)'s notice requirements. The Commission has warned, however, that ``any omission of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant.'' Indeed, the Commission emphasized the importance of the ETC requirements
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2107A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2107A1.pdf
    • full $8,000 for a limited number of violations is consistent with past Commission orders. We, therefore, see no reason to reduce the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL and find that the Station is liable for a forfeiture amount of $25,000. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 713, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2140A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2140A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Medical Services is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2141A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2141A1.pdf
    • delivering at least one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2142A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2142A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2143A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2144A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2144A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2145A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2145A1.pdf
    • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Universal Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Universal Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-216A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-216A1.pdf
    • timely prepared and were on a different floor of the main studio location but could not be located because of recent staff changes, and that Lazer has since modified its procedures concerning public inspection files for all of their stations. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Lazer's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-21A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-21A1.pdf
    • granted May 31, 2007. By operating station WPOG498 for approximately two and one-half years without authorization, Richmond apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Richmond also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2293A1.pdf
    • No. 200932080012 Facility ID No. 4094 FRN No. 0008498685 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 16, 2008 Released: October 16, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that Rejoynetwork, LLC (``Rejoynetwork'' or the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WAAW(FM), Williston, South Carolina (the ``Station'') apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by broadcasting multiple telephone conversations without giving prior notice to the individuals being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on a review of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2296A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2296A1.pdf
    • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $16,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2297A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2297A1.pdf
    • Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 by broadcasting each recorded call twice. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We note that Spanish Broadcasting Systems, Inc., the parent company of each Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.pdf
    • The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf
    • then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf
    • then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2306A1.pdf
    • the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.47(a) of the Rules. BK submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining BK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2316A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2316A1.pdf
    • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2335A1.pdf
    • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Brahmin Broadcasting Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 1, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2355A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2355A1.pdf
    • than 90% of the authorized power, and failure to maintain a complete public inspection file. In its response, Viva does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests that we cancel the forfeiture in light of its remedial efforts. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Viva's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2391A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2391A1.pdf
    • the Commission's Indecency Rules as well as the investigation by the Media Bureau considering the allegations in the informal objections to the renewal of Station WQAM(AM). ``Investigations and Hearings Division'' means the Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, acting on behalf of the Enforcement Bureau. ``NAL'' means Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), Miami, Florida (FCC 04-225), released November 23, 2004. ``Order'' or ``Adopting Order'' means an Order adopted by the Bureaus adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion or modification. ``Parties'' means Beasley and the Bureaus. ``Rules'' means the Commission's
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2437A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2437A1.pdf
    • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that XLNT Idea's conduct has continued over a period that began in August 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to XLNT Idea's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. As noted above, XLNT Idea marketed three devices prior to authorization: the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter, the Nexis 100AP Publisher, and the Xi440 CD/DVD Printer. We note, however, that the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter and the Nexis 100AP Publisher are identical except that the Nexis
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2443A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2443A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Western Aviation, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2449A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2449A1.pdf
    • operating radio transmitting equipment on land mobile channels reserved exclusively for use by public safety entities. In his response to the NAL, Doe does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Doe's response to the NAL and his statement of income, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2451A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2451A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2457A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2457A1.pdf
    • find that the base forfeiture of $1,000 against SkyPort and its affiliates for the section 214 authorization and each of the two earth station licenses is appropriate and we propose a total forfeiture of $3,000. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SkyPort Global Communications, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 25.119 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2461A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2461A1.pdf
    • dollars ($19,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.3526(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Star Power submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Star Power's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.pdf
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2503A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2503A1.pdf
    • that it violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules and submitted a payment in the amount of $12,000 for those violations. Black Crow, however, requested cancellation or reduction of the remaining $11,000 proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Black Crow's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2516A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2516A1.pdf
    • seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 301 and 333 of the Act. Mr. Allred submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Allred's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2550A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2550A1.pdf
    • fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.49, 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(a)(2) of the Rules. Perihelion submitted a response to the NAL requesting to pay the forfeiture in six installments. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Perihelion's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-25A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-25A1.pdf
    • willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. Broadcasters, Inc. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Broadcasters, Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2625A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2625A1.pdf
    • section 310(d) of the Act and section 25.119 of the Commission's rules. The fundamental issue in this case is whether FTH violated section 310(d) of the Act and Section 25.119 of the Commission rules by transferring 35 satellite earth station licenses without required Commission approval. We answer this question affirmatively. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, and under Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we therefore conclude that FTH is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $17,500. FTH admits that it failed to apply for Commission approval to transfer control of the satellite earth station licenses. In connection with the stock recapitalization, FTH applied for Commission approval to transfer FTH television broadcast licenses. Notwithstanding FTH's arguments, the Commission did not
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-262A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-262A1.pdf
    • Account No. 200832080009 FRN No. 0009758095 Facility ID No. 36069 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 20, 2008 Released: February 20, 2008 By the Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Courier Communications Corp. (``Courier'' or the ``Licensee''), Licensee of Station WNOV(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the other party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2666A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2666A1.pdf
    • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $25,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of Sections 17.50, 73.49, 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.pdf
    • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Multi-Tech's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2006 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Multi-Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Multi-Tech apparently marketed the CallFinder device without including in the user manual the consumer information regarding radio frequency interference required by Section 15.105(a) of the Rules. We note that a $7,000 forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2698A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2698A1.pdf
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to OMI. OMI submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture due to its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining OMI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-26A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-26A1.pdf
    • thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.50 and 17.57 of the Rules. IBC submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining IBC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2715A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2715A1.pdf
    • 4(j), 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by AMERI-KING Corporation, IS DISMISSED, and the Bureau's 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and the Bureau affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2724A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2724A1.pdf
    • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Lazer Licensees, LLC's Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2732A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2732A1.pdf
    • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Rentex is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Rentex is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2794A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2794A1.pdf
    • a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Visiplex is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for construction or operation at an unauthorized location. Visiplex concedes that it operated its wireless synchronized clock radio systems under call signs WPJU326 and WQBF524 at permanent fixed locations, rather than mobile locations as authorized in its licenses. We find that Visiplex's operation of each of these
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2815A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2815A1.pdf
    • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Christian Family Network's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART and the forfeiture is reduced to five thousand dollars ($5,000). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-368A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-368A1.pdf
    • light outages. In this regard, it was Forever's ``omission'' that resulted in its willful operation of a monitoring system that could not detect single light outages, in violation of Section 17.47 of the Commission's Rules. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Forever of PA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-397A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-397A1.pdf
    • one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered her telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-398A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-398A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Business Payment Systems, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Business Payment Systems, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-402A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-402A1.pdf
    • AMERI-KING argues that it did not willfully violate Section 301, that it did not repeatedly violate Section 301, that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliance, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-403A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-403A1.pdf
    • has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; that it made good faith and voluntary disclosures to the Commission; that it did not act alone in this matter; and that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliances. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-405A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-405A1.pdf
    • ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Tampa Office has since learned that Mr. Gaye passed away. Because Mr. Gaye is no longer living, we cancel the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Henry Gaye IS HEREBY CANCELED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional Director, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 301. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832700006 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, January 9, 2008) (``NAL''). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. ��� 0.111,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-410A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-410A1.pdf
    • that the renewal application submitted by the vendor was for its taxi dispatch service license. Five Star further asserts that it has fully cooperated in the Commission's investigation. Based on these facts, Five Star requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Blue Casa's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Blue Casa will
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Sprint Nextel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Sprint Nextel will
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Amp'd Mobile's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Amp'd Mobile will
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Link Systems' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Link Systems will
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cricket's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Cricket will have an
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cooperative Communications' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Cooperative Communications will
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Reduced Rate Long Distance's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Reduced
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Total Call's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Total Call will
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf
    • orders. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. West Star's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of the six informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and letter orders warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf
    • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. WorldOne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. WorldOne will have an opportunity to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf
    • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITEG's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. ITEG will have an opportunity to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Alltel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. Alltel will have an
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.pdf
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. AT&T's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $96,000. AT&T will have an
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-432A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-432A1.pdf
    • amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules. Pittman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pittman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.pdf
    • Manning's Response and the record, we find that Manning did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Manning Municipal Communications and Television System Utilities, in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.pdf
    • Commission to incur costs, with no reasonable hope of recovery. However, we emphasize that our decision to rescind the proposed forfeiture in no way exonerates Habla for its apparent violation of a Commission order. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the amount if four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Habla Communicaciones, Inc. in the March 30, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of a Commission directive IS CANCELED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-463A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-463A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-46A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-46A1.pdf
    • until August 28, 2007. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 22 months without Commission authorization, Miller apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Miller also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.pdf
    • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DBK's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DBK's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, within the past year, DBK marketed two PDT models that were improperly labeled, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and Symbol WSS1060, and one PDT model that was both unauthorized
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-473A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-473A1.pdf
    • locked fence or other enclosure. In its Response, Brahmin requests a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KRAE antenna tower, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Brahmin's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-474A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-474A1.pdf
    • the violation was not willful and not repeated, that Metro West took immediate steps to rectify the situation as soon as it was aware of the violation, and that Metro West has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-493A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-493A1.pdf
    • its enforcement function and evaluate whether Hauppauge violated Commission rules. There is no question that Hauppauge received the LOIs. To date, however, Hauppauge has failed to provide full and complete responses. Hauppauge's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-497A1.pdf
    • as a separate violation and Pembrook therefore requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced by $3,000. Second, Pembrook requests that the overall fine be reduced by no less than $2,000 to reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pembrook's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-498A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-498A1.pdf
    • for operating radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 439.850 MHz and 147.560 MHz without a license. In its response to the NAL, Mondgock does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mondgock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-505A1.pdf
    • Forfeiture to Hispanic in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Hispanic submitted a response the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Hispanic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-516A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-516A1.pdf
    • tower's registered owner. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL issued to Pinnacle must be cancelled and a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $3,000 is being issued on this date to Holmes. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Pinnacle Towers LLC IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Pinnacle Towers LLC at its address of record and to counsel for Pinnacle Towers LLC at his address of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-521A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-521A1.pdf
    • Moreover, even if Campbell had provided such evidence, the mere filing of an application would not have provided Campbell any authority to operate a radio station. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Stone Campbell, a/k/a Monroe Campbell, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-524A1.pdf
    • III. DISCUSSION WMGO does not dispute the merits of our apparent finding in the NAL that it violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules and we therefore affirm that holding. Nevertheless, WMGO contends that we should cancel or reduce the forfeiture. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf
    • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Telefyne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of three informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf
    • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. GNCW's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of these two informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each complaint, for a total
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.pdf
    • for aeronautical use subject to certain conditions. See e.g., File No. 0003100761 (granted November 4, 2003). LOI response at 1. Id. GMS indicated that it subsequently learned that the municipality is not using the system because it was not able to obtain a license to operate in the 4.9 GHz band. Id See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 x y � � $ = 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-535A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-535A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-541A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-541A1.pdf
    • his brother-in-law's friends about the radio station equipment and the antenna on the roof, but he was not able to obtain any information from them. Watkins does not address in response his refusal to allow the agents to inspect the equipment. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Watkins's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-548A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-548A1.pdf
    • forfeiture of $50,000 against COI for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting COI's Worksheets. We also find by a preponderance of the evidence that COI has willfully and repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents, and support its response with the required affidavit or declaration. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its LOI response would be timely submitted. However,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.pdf
    • Response, Greene Declaration at paras. 13-14; Irizarry Declaration at paras. 15-18. 47 U.S.C. � 301; 47 C.F.R. � 1.903(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.949(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.955(a)(1). See, e.g., Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002) (licensee is responsible for compliance with all Commission rules). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 NON-PUBLIC/FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY - ! � � � �@��� T � \ � �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-555A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-555A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-562A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-562A1.pdf
    • cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On January 9, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received IBC's petition for reconsideration on February 7, 2008, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining IBC's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-563A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-563A1.pdf
    • $13,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 22, 2007, by Communications Relay Corporation, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Communications Relay Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.pdf
    • a response on September 17, 2007 (``Response''). In its Response, CB Shop argues that Galaxy Model DX99V does not require certification by the Commission because it is not a CB transceiver. Consequently, CB Shop argues the forfeiture should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-598A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-598A1.pdf
    • February 8, 2008, and March 12, 2008. In its Response, Carlsbad Radio argues that it made efforts immediately after the Denver Office's inspection to amend the WGW926 license, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-599A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-599A1.pdf
    • 13, 2008. In its Response, Bravo Mic argues that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, prior to the Denver Office's inspection. Bravo Mic also argues that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-603A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-603A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-605A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-605A1.pdf
    • rectify the problem; the tower involved was one of a three tower array; the violation was not willful; Threshold knew about the problem prior to involvement by the Commission; and Threshold has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-606A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-606A1.pdf
    • a license on 95.9 MHz. Simon filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on July 19, 2007, and supplemented his response on March 7, 2008. In his Response, Simon states that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-610A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-610A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-669A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-669A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-670A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-670A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Copier Search International, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Copier Search International, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-671A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-671A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that DD&S Companies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that DD&S Companies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-741A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-741A1.pdf
    • accounts, no shareholders, no officers, and no address. BEC also states that it requested dissolution from Texas State Comptroller on August 17, 2007. As part of its Petition, BEC includes its filings with the Texas State Comptroller. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the $8,000 forfeiture is warranted. Nevertheless, we find that it is appropriate to admonish BEC for its willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-742A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-742A1.pdf
    • does not deny the inoperability of the EAS equipment, but requests that the forfeiture be reduced or cancelled based on its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, and its ability to pay the forfeiture because of its financial situation. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-743A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-743A1.pdf
    • the Honolulu Office to resolve the issue. After working with the Honolulu Office for four days in October, 2007, JMK filed its Supplemental Response, which reiterated the arguments of its Response, but supplied new, and conflicting, engineering data and information. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining JMK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.pdf
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 * 9 < G H I V Z b g h k p z ~  � ... � � � � .� � � � � � h�j h�j h�j � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...���
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-756A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-756A1.pdf
    • of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. Traffic Control submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Traffic Control's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.pdf
    • toll-free numbers. See Defendant's Response to Complainant's Interrogatory No. 3. Complaint at 14. Response at 5. Complaint at 15. Complaint at Ex. K; Answer at Ex. II. Erdman Technologies Corp. v. US Sprint Communications Company, 11 FCC Rcd 6339, 6342 (May 29, 1996). Answer at 10. Response at 9. Complaint at 15. 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, � 29 (1998). Complaint at 15. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.722(d), (h). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � ^�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-792A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-792A1.pdf
    • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Maignan submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Maignan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-817A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-817A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Meridian Marketing Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-818A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-818A1.pdf
    • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send two unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-869A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-869A1.pdf
    • that it has been operating on one of the EBS channels without authority since 1994 and on two of the EBS channels without authority since 2001. As detailed below, we find that Dakota Central apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on three EBS channels without Commission authorization. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for unauthorized use of a frequency. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess against an entity that is neither a broadcaster nor a common carrier a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.pdf
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - S T U � � T U � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-904A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-904A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Alliance Capital's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-905A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-905A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Aras's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-906A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-906A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for Mario's Roofing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-907A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-907A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Tri-State's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-908A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-908A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for ESpeed's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4),and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-909A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-909A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $10,000 for NEIR's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-910A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-910A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-911A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-911A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-961A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-961A1.pdf
    • of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Mr. Rackley submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Rackley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-968A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-968A1.pdf
    • the forfeiture assessed on Antique Radio Collector, an ``individual'' engaged in a casual source of income, is excessive when compared to the forfeiture assessed on a business entity regularly engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Antique Radio Collector's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1031A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1031A1.pdf
    • conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Sennheiser's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Sennheiser's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of Sennheiser's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1044A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1044A1.pdf
    • imposed. The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Corr is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for operation on an unauthorized frequency. Corr concedes that it operated stations WMV851 and WPJD282 on unauthorized frequencies. We find that Corr's operation of each of these stations on an unauthorized frequency is a separate violation, subject to a separate proposed forfeiture of $4,000. We accordingly conclude
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1184A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1184A1.pdf
    • Wireless in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules. ERF Wireless submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining ERF Wireless' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1198A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1198A1.pdf
    • Identifier TW4-906T issued to Shenzhen AEE Technology Co., Ltd., for a 2.4 GHz Wireless Camera (``Shenzhen Grant''), along with a ``LVD Report'' for Shenzhen AEE Technology Co., LTD Model ZT-906T and an ``EMC Test Report'' for Models ZT-906T and ZT-903T. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-119A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-119A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cablevision's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1208A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1208A1.pdf
    • did not intentionally commit the violations and that it has made significant efforts to come into compliance with the Commission's Rules. In addition, MBHD submits a Declaration from the WYGG consulting engineer that addresses each of the findings in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining MBHD's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf
    • will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf
    • will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that Cox is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf
    • will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1247A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1247A1.pdf
    • authority after September 26, 2007. By operating earth station E970411 without Commission authorization, Fox Television apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Fox Television also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the earth station. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.pdf
    • failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall b e liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been i ssued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1258A1.pdf
    • Commission authorization, TSA apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules and is apparently liable for a forfeiture. TSA is also apparently liable for a forfeiture for failing to file a timely renewal application for aviation support station KSC8 in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1264A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1264A1.pdf
    • to receive prior authorization from the International Bureau, a proposed forfeiture of $100,000 is warranted for Teleplus's apparent willful repeated failure to obtain section 214 authority from the Commission prior to providing international telecommunications service. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and the authority delegated by section 0.111 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, Teleplus, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $100,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.pdf
    • repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been issued mus t have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.pdf
    • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Time Warner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.pdf
    • repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Harron is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.pdf
    • repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand, five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1327A1.pdf
    • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Copier Search's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Copier Search International, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1328A1.pdf
    • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $10,000 for AZ Prime One willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1329A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1329A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Rentex's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Rentex IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.pdf
    • if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1386A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1386A1.pdf
    • Bear Creek personnel immediately applied for a license once the FCC agents advised them that a license was required. Third, Bear Creek submits that the absence of prior FCC violations warrants cancellation of the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1390A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1390A1.pdf
    • in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Midland's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Midland's's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Midland apparently marketed two distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT950 (designated by Midland as models GXT900VP4, GXT900VP4K and GXT950VP4) and the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT850Z (designated by Midland as
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1428A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1428A1.pdf
    • conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Iftron's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Iftron's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of Iftron's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess entities such as Iftron a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1437A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1437A1.pdf
    • Cayuga also urges the Commission to cancel or substantially reduce the NAL's proposed forfeiture amount asserting that it is unable to pay that amount and that the amount should reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-146A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-146A1.pdf
    • the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Proxim's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2005 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Proxim's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. As set forth in the confidential appendix, Proxim apparently marketed AP-4000 wireless access points that are not compliant with the DFS requirement of Section 15.407(h)(2) of the Rules. In addition, Proxim apparently marketed AP-700 and AP-4000 wireless access points that were not labeled
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-147A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-147A1.pdf
    • the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Inter Tech's conduct has continued since 2006 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Inter Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). We conclude that Inter Tech marketed the unauthorized Cybermax FM TX1 transmitter. Accordingly, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) is
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1485A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1485A1.pdf
    • See 47 C.F.R. �15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J. Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1485 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1485 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1505A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1511A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1511A1.pdf
    • also urges the Commission to cancel or substantially reduce the NAL's proposed forfeiture amount asserting that it is unable to pay that amount and that the forfeiture amount should reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.pdf
    • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Inter Tech's conduct has continued since at least February 2008, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Inter Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each violation involving the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Further, we have found that each instance of marketing of an unauthorized model constitutes a separate and continuing violation. Consistent with recent precedent, we propose a total forfeiture
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1514A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1514A1.pdf
    • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Amerilist's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1530A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1530A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for DD&S's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that DD&S Companies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1531A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1531A1.pdf
    • the information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for So Clean's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that So Clean, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1535A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1535A1.pdf
    • conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that LawMate's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to LawMate's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of LawMate's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1538A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1538A1.pdf
    • that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of their demonstrated inability to pay. They also included a photograph of the closed, locked gate to the fence and reported that the gate to the fence is now locked and secure. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Ortega and Juarez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1539A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1539A1.pdf
    • 136.1 MHz. In its Response, Playa argues that a forfeiture is not warranted in this case because it responded to the San Diego Office and addressed the issue ``promptly and fully,'' and that the violation was not willful or repeated. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Playa's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1540A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1540A1.pdf
    • earth station without Commission authorization. In its Response, Starfish argues that it operated in good faith and relied on outside parties concerning the licensing process, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of Starfish's demonstrated inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Starfish's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1552A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1552A1.pdf
    • willful violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules and willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. Jackson submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Jackson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1566A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1566A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Universal Roofing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Universal Roofing d/b/a Universal Roofing & General Contracting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1568A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1568A1.pdf
    • was minor in nature, that it was immediately corrected, that it was not repeated, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on Greeley's history of compliance with the Rules, as well as it inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Greeley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1569A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1569A1.pdf
    • Licensee had apparently violated the pertinent statute and Commission rules, and proposing a monetary forfeiture of $20,000. On March 14, 2009, PRC responded to the NAL, claiming inability to pay and requesting that the proposed forfeiture be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.pdf
    • record, we find that @Communications did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.pdf
    • record, we find that PriorityOne did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1596A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1596A1.pdf
    • to maintain issues/programs lists. Chladek therefore requests a waiver of the forfeiture in light of the station's unique public service programming and the fact that the station is now in compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1597A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1597A1.pdf
    • units and a mobile relay station on the unauthorized frequencies 469.4 MHz and 464.4 MHz respectively. Despite evidence that Sims received the NAL, Sims has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Sims Metal East, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.pdf
    • record, we find that Naperville did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.pdf
    • record, we find that Sweetser did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.pdf
    • we find that TCO Network did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.pdf
    • record, we find that Hinton did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.pdf
    • that The Telephone Company, Inc. did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.pdf
    • record, we find that Momentum did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 NAL for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1626A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1626A1.pdf
    • or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1626 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1626 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ; < � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1630A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1630A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Coastal Steel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1631A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1631A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Tri-State's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the 2008 NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.pdf
    • the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS-JM2 GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 U V 8 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1712A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1712A1.pdf
    • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for First Alliance's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that First Alliance Security IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1733A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1733A1.pdf
    • pertinent statute and Commission Rules, and proposing a monetary forfeiture of $5,000. On February 13, 2009, Jones responded to the NAL, alleging that the Bureau's ruling is erroneous and that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled or reduced. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-174A1.pdf
    • Orleans Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Millworks. Millworks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Southern Classic Millworks, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1751A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1751A1.pdf
    • presented a reasonable showing that neither Venali nor customers using Venali services in fact transmitted the faxes involved in the complaints or NAL. We therefore conclude that the NAL issued to Venali should be cancelled. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's Rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $18,000 issued to Venali, Inc. in the September 28, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Venali, Inc., at its address
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1753A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1753A1.pdf
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Severino. Mr. Severino has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Radhames Severino IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Severino will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1756A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1756A1.pdf
    • when Journal Broadcast filed its requests for STAs. Thus, it appears that Journal Broadcast violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for each station, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its stations without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-175A1.pdf
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to Mr. Konarz. Mr. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for violations of Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-176A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-176A1.pdf
    • Juan Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $13,000 to PBS. PBS has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Perry Broadcasting Systems IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violations of Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1772A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1772A1.pdf
    • the restricted frequency bands. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1772 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1772 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' T  � S T � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1823A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1823A1.pdf
    • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1823 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1823 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 I J -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.pdf
    • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 J -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1832A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1832A1.pdf
    • Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. In its NAL Response, Ministerio does not dispute the Bureau's NAL finding that the two announcements at issue violated the Commission's underwriting rules and so we adopt the NAL's apparent conclusion concerning those announcements. Instead, Ministerio focuses on the proposed forfeiture amount, which was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-183A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-183A1.pdf
    • 1990 letter decision in which an admonishment was issued by the Mass Media Bureau concerning a contest rule violation in Kevin Cooney, Entercom argues that, at most, the circumstances of this case might merit an admonishment, but not a forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-184A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-184A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Medical Services is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.pdf
    • SIM card sales. Accordingly, we find that Cellular Abroad did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Cellular Abroad,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.pdf
    • was due. Accordingly, we find that Daytona Beach did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to City of Daytona Beach in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.pdf
    • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Nebraska Supercomm did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Nebraska
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.pdf
    • a telecommunications carrier. Accordingly, we find that Pilgrim did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.pdf
    • 2007 calendar year. Accordingly, we find that Visionary did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.pdf
    • 2007 was not due. Accordingly, we find that Zicore did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Zicore,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-189A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-189A1.pdf
    • KDKA(AM) ) FRN No. 0009225210 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 5, 2009 Released: February 5, 2009 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that CBS Radio East Inc. (``CBS'' or the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KDKA(AM), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (``Station KDKA'' or the ``Station''), broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof, and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.pdf
    • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Isan did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Isan,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.pdf
    • calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.pdf
    • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Orange did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.pdf
    • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Freedom did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.pdf
    • calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.pdf
    • not due. Accordingly, we find that Worldwide Marketing did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1958A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1958A1.pdf
    • facsimile number of record used for the November 4, 2008 LOI. The certified mail return receipt confirms delivery of the Follow-Up LOI on March 9, 2009. The facsimile transmittal receipt confirms satisfactory transmission of the Follow-Up LOI on March 4, 2009. To date, Opp Ed has not responded to the Follow-Up LOI. DISCUSSION Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1968A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1968A1.pdf
    • offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Eric Hoppe, Progressive Concepts (May 13, 2008). Letter from Eric Hoppe, Progressive Concepts, to Peter Waltonen, Esq, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (July 2, 2008). Id. at 2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1968 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1968 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 _ ` 5 6 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.pdf
    • by another carrier. Accordingly, we find that Clarks did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1989A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1989A1.pdf
    • to maintain a main studio for WFBZ consistent with the Rules. In its response, Sparta-Tomah does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests that we cancel the forfeiture in light of its remedial efforts and history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Sparta-Tomah's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-198A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-198A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Alliance Capital willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1990A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1990A1.pdf
    • operating at excessive power and therefore warrants a lower forfeiture amount; and requests a reduction in the overall forfeiture amount based on its inability to pay and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1991A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1991A1.pdf
    • the public inspection file. In its response to the NAL, Real Life requests a cancellation or reduction based on its remedial efforts, its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, its history of overall compliance, and its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Real Life's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-199A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-199A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for American Locators willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Locators, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-200A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-200A1.pdf
    • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Guardian Steel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2053A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2053A1.pdf
    • caused ``solely by operator error'' and ``did not constitute a willful or repeated violation'' of the Rules. Additionally, the Licensee asserts that it has provided additional EAS training for each of the station operators to ensure that the events of October 19, 2008, are not repeated. dISCUSSION Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2069A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2069A1.pdf
    • obligations, and that this was demonstrated by its ultimate award of all promised prizes including bonus items to compensate the complainant for his trouble. Saga urges that the Commission cancel or substantially reduce the proposed $4,000 forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2079A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2079A1.pdf
    • based on information provided by WorldNet in its response to the NAL, including sworn declarations from two WorldNet employees, we find that the record is insufficient to support a finding of a willful violation. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL should be cancelled. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the April 3, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order issued to WorldNet, L.L.C. IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Ms. Debra R. Schmidt, Director of Telephony Services, WorldNet, L.L.C., 1 Riverfront Plaza, Suite
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-207A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-207A1.pdf
    • notification provisions play in protecting the integrity of its auctions. On balance, and in light of our legal precedent, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $75,000 against Cascade is appropriate in this instance. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Cascade Access, L.L.C., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) for its willful violation of Sections 1.2105(c)(1) and (c)(6) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2105(c)(1) and (c)(6). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2101A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2101A1.pdf
    • failed to submit a response to the NAL. On February 4, 2009, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $3,000 forfeiture. On February 24, 2009, Millworks filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Millworks' petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-216A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-216A1.pdf
    • the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to this case, we conclude that Lancaster is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for apparently violating the Commission's underwriting rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Lancaster Educational Broadcasting Foundation, licensee of noncommercial educational Station WFCO(FM), Lancaster, Ohio, is hereby NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, during the period
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2213A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2213A1.pdf
    • thousand dollars ($12,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.51(b) of the Rules. Foundation, Inc. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Foundation Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2239A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2239A1.pdf
    • in Brooklyn, New York in violation of Section 301 of the Act. In their response, Clerveau and Edwards deny having a radio station in their apartment and claim that the radio station is operated from a building across the street. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Clerveau's and Edwards' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2303A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2303A1.pdf
    • with the FCC ID and thus did not comply with Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. Accordingly, we find that Richfield apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing equipment that was not labeled in accordance with Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules provide that any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any term or condition of a Commission license, permit, certificate or other authorization or any provision of the Act, or Commission rule, regulation, or order, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2305A1.pdf
    • structure number 1005854, a violation of section 17.57. Ely filed a response (``Response'') on December 1, 2008, arguing that it is not the owner of antenna structure 1005854, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-233A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-233A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Secured Finance willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-234A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-234A1.pdf
    • before us, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules when the Station's ``KOST Rewards Program's `Les Miserables' Contest'' broadcast information about a Contest it conducted but failed to fully disclose the material terms of that Contest or to conduct the Contest substantially as advertised. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each violation of Section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(c)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2365A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2365A1.pdf
    • Forfeiture to Mr. Grover in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Grover submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Grover's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2374A1.pdf
    • to the issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the Commission from assessing whether Uniden's conduct prior to that time period apparently violated the provisions of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Uniden apparently marketed three distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT018 (designated by Uniden as models GMR1588-2CK and GMR1595-2CK); the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT017 (designated by Uniden as model GMR1558-2CK);and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2375A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2375A1.pdf
    • the Act, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the base amount to $15,000 is justified for Global NAPs' apparent repeated and willful failure to provide a timely and complete response to the LOI. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Global NAPs California, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $80,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2383A1.pdf
    • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that R.F. Technologies' conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to R.F. Technologies' apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation. Based on the record before us, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2390A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2390A1.pdf
    • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Frank submitted responses to the NAL denying that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and requesting that the matter be dropped. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Frank's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2395A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2395A1.pdf
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2395 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2395 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2404A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2404A1.pdf
    • proposed forfeiture amounts. On October 3, 2009, investigation by agents from the Denver Office revealed that Hodson continued to operate KHOD(FM) in Raton, New Mexico, at variance with the terms of its construction permit and Section 73.1620 of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2426A1.pdf
    • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2426 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2426 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2441A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2441A1.pdf
    • relied on coordinates given to it by the owner of the building in which it was located, that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2442A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2442A1.pdf
    • that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, that it promptly erected the temporary fence urged by the agent, that the stations gross revenues are marginal, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Evan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2447A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2447A1.pdf
    • Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See FCC IDs XQGQRF600-RE and XQGQRF600-TR (granted: September 27, 2009; grantee: QOMO HiteVision LLC.). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA-09-2447 Federal Communications Commission DA-09-2447 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) � � � � � &`#$ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2473A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2473A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-24A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-24A1.pdf
    • January 25, 2007, but prior to the issuance of the NAL, the Commission approved, and Hensley consummated on June 15, 2007, a transfer of control from Carl C. Kuehn and the Estate of M. Dean Lebo to Joseph L. Green. II. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Hensley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2506A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2506A1.pdf
    • are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The listed video transmitters intentionally transmit radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See n. 11 supra and accompanying text. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2506 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2506 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 M N � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2507A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2507A1.pdf
    • the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Apple is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-252A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-252A1.pdf
    • (``Petition''). In its Petition, the Licensee seeks reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture in light of its record of compliance, the nature of the violation, and the corrective steps taken to insure its future compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-253A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-253A1.pdf
    • that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Power 7's conduct has continued over a period that began on March 29, 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Power 7's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. At the time of Power 7's apparent violations, we were authorized under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act to assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, a broadcast
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2545A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2545A1.pdf
    • consultants to guide it through regulatory and other legal issues. XLNT Idea states that the proposed forfeiture is a heavy burden. To substantiate these claims, XLNT Idea submits federal tax returns for 2006, 2007, and a financial statement for 2008. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. XLNT Idea,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-255A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-255A1.pdf
    • us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Cumulus has previously been found to violate Section 73.1206. Having considered the record in this case and the statutory factors, we
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2568A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2568A1.pdf
    • to the NAL on January 22, 2009. In its Response, Westin argues that the proposed forfeiture amount should be reduced because of it good faith efforts to comply with the Rules and its history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9 The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Big Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Big Telephone, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2574A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2574A1.pdf
    • filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on January 16, 2009. In its Response, Nevada Yellow Cab argues that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2575A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2575A1.pdf
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Anthony F. Davis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Davis will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.pdf
    • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ben Lomand Rural apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ben Lomand apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ben Lomand Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bellvoz apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bellvoz Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bee Line apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bee Line Cable IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Atlantic apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.pdf
    • frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The video transmitters listed in your response intentionally transmit radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5U.S.C � 552(a)(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2644A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2644A1.pdf
    • 2005, until the filing of its STA request on January 30, 2009, Nevada Sun Peak apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Nevada Sun Peak also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQE205. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.pdf
    • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find American Fiber apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.pdf
    • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Action Communications, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Action Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find 800 Response apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 800 Response Information Services LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Buckeye apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Cherokee apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Cherokee Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find China Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, China Telecom (Americas) Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Communications Venture apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.pdf
    • an annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Aquis apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Consolidated Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Consolidated Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clear World apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clear World Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find D.G.A. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Isan apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Isan IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Tennessee apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Kitchen Productions apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.pdf
    • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find KanOkla Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Latino Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Latino Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.pdf
    • by an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Threshold apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Threshold Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.pdf
    • not in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Leflore apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Leflore Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.pdf
    • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Legacy Long Distance apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.pdf
    • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find M & L Enterprises apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Liberty apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.pdf
    • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Call One apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.pdf
    • an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find McClure Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, McClure Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find VDL apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, VDL, Inc., d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.pdf
    • has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Volunteer apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Volunteer First Services, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.pdf
    • not in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Commnet apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Commnet Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.pdf
    • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Momentum Telecom, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Momentum Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Worldwide Marketing apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.pdf
    • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Angel Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.pdf
    • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Data Radio Management apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Data Radio Management Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find MacIntyre apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Scott C. MacIntyre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.pdf
    • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Edward Adams Associates apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Edward Adams Associates, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Zicore apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Zicore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SI2Way apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, SI2Way, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.pdf
    • not in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Frank apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Wayne Frank IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.pdf
    • compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hopper apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, James T. Hopper IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.pdf
    • compliance certificate stating his personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Sherman apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Arthur N. Sherman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telebeeper apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.pdf
    • annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clifford Bade apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clifford Bade IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find National Brands apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Netcarrier apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Netcarrier Telecom, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Network Innovations apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Network Innovations, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.pdf
    • any actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Nunn apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Nunn Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.pdf
    • an annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find O.R. Knutson apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, O.R. Knutson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.pdf
    • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find One Touch apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, One Touch India LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.pdf
    • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Phillips County apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.pdf
    • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Prime Time Ventures apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Prime Time Ventures, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.pdf
    • any actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.pdf
    • by an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find ProCom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ProCom LMR, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Protek apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Protek Leasing Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find DAR apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DAR Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Securetel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Securetel Network Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Shreveport apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Dixville Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Dixville Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.pdf
    • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find E & F Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E & F Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.pdf
    • the company with personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Eastern Colorado apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find EGIX apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, EGIX, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.pdf
    • any actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SCTelcom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, South Central Wireless, Inc. dba SCTelcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.pdf
    • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Specialized Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find BKT apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, BKT Telecom Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find First Mile apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Gabriel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Gabriel Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.pdf
    • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find T2 Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, T2 Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ganoco apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ganoco, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.pdf
    • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telchin apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Telchin Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.pdf
    • compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find General Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, General Mobile Radio IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.pdf
    • rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4, 000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Highland apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Highland Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.pdf
    • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find TeleSpan apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.pdf
    • frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.pdf
    • by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-438A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-438A1.pdf
    • its Response, Princess K Fishing Corporation argues it did not willfully or repeatedly violate Section 80.89(a) of the Rules, that it was not responsible for the acts of its employee, and that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-479A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-479A1.pdf
    • request for STA. Thus, it appears that SES apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating the Satcom C-3 satellite without Commission authority, and that SES apparently violated the requirement to file a modification application to extend the license pursuant to Section 25.117 of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-47A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-47A1.pdf
    • contained in programming that was supplied by the same third-party programmer and involved many of the same advertisers as programming that drew a previous admonishment for violation of the Underwriting Rules. In these circumstances, no mitigation as a consequence of the ``embedded'' nature of the impermissible advertisements is warranted. B. Proposed Action 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-48A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-48A1.pdf
    • appropriate. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to this case, we conclude that Ministerio is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's Underwriting Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Ministerio Radial Cristo Viene Pronto, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational Station WCRP(FM), Guayama, Puerto Rico, is HEREBY NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-49A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-49A1.pdf
    • calls to action. The foregoing references appear to exceed the licensee's discretion under Xavier because each, in the context presented, refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters that are not necessarily possessed by competitors, or otherwise contain prohibited price information or other language of inducement. B. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-50A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-50A1.pdf
    • substantially fewer and the period of time over which they aired is substantially less. Based on all the circumstances, and after examining forfeiture actions in other recent underwriting cases, we believe that a forfeiture of $2,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Cayuga County Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational Station WDWN(FM), Auburn, New York, is hereby NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-51A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-51A1.pdf
    • rule violations while preparing to respond to our August 9th LOI, that fact alone does not raise a question of misrepresentation or lack of candor. There is, therefore, no basis on which to conclude that PRC failed to observe its duty to be truthful and candid before the Commission. B. Proposed Action 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-538A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-538A1.pdf
    • until March 13, 2008, when Discovery filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Discovery violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-539A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-539A1.pdf
    • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Capital Line's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 180(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Capital Line IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-558A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-558A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Modena's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-560A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-560A1.pdf
    • operating earth station E920702 and earth station E7541 without Commission authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Lockheed Martin also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the earth stations. IV. PROPOSED FORFEITURE Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-588A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-588A1.pdf
    • 92.9 MHz at 9026 West Brudick Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Skalecki reports that he operates a weather monitoring station from that property, but claims that the unlicensed broadcast station was operating from another nearby residence on which several antennas are located. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Skalecki's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-669A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-669A1.pdf
    • we find that any of the 249 non-DTV compliant receivers were imported prior to March 1, 2007, and sold by Hannspree in their two California-based retail stores from their inventory, then we should reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture accordingly. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-697A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-697A1.pdf
    • SkyPort must pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. SkyPort has failed to either respond to the NAL or pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-728A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-728A1.pdf
    • the Commission. In addition, Saga argues that imposing the proposed forfeiture for operation of its earth station without a license would be contrary to the public interest. Saga argues that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 301
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-765A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-765A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that WorldNet's failure to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants an increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to compromise the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-79A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-79A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Bright House's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-80A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-80A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-812A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-812A1.pdf
    • amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Bethune-Cookman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Bethune-Cookman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-81A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-81A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Charter's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-82A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-82A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Harron's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-830A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-830A1.pdf
    • was relocated in July 2007. ICTI also admits that it did not notify the Commission that the Station's main studio had been relocated, as required by the rule. As a result of these facts, we find that ICTI has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules set a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the main studio requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.pdf
    • ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.237(a). The grant of certification for the Listentech LT700 was issued on June 8, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) g h � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-83A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-83A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Comcast's failure to even attempt to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-84A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-84A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Suddenlink's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-85A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-85A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-897A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-897A1.pdf
    • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against 1st United Tel-Com, Inc. (``1st United'' or ``Company''). 1st United violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. 1st United acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to 1st United a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on 1st United's apparent violation of a Bureau's directive. The NAL gave 1st United the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-90A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-90A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Kauai NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-936A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-936A1.pdf
    • failed to submit a response to the NAL. On December 9, 2008, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $25,000 forfeiture. On January 12, 2009, Rama filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-93A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-93A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Oahu Central NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-94A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-94A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's apparent failure to comply with the Cox NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture. Misconduct
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-95A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-95A1.pdf
    • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Midcontinent's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-991A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-991A1.pdf
    • and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least one unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that One Stop Motors, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that One Stop Motors, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1047A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1047A1.pdf
    • considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CruiseEmail's conduct has continued for several years, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CruiseEmail's apparent violations occurring within the past year. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, set the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location at $4,000. Accordingly, we propose a total base forfeiture of $12,000 ($4,000 x 3 stations) against CruiseEmail for its operation of stations KDS, WGM, and WHX at unauthorized locations in apparent willful
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.pdf
    • the Commission's database. Accordingly, we find that Freedom Communications did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC in the February 26, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1054A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1054A1.pdf
    • to the NAL on February 9, 2010. In their response, Nierman and Kakadu do not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but request cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on their inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1073A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1073A1.pdf
    • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Eight Friends. Eight Friends has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eight Friends IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Eight Friends shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1077A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1077A1.pdf
    • 10. None of the foregoing announcements are permissible under Xavier because each, in the context presented is ``clearly promotional.'' Each announcement refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters and their products and seeks to distinguish them from competitors, or contains language of inducement. B. Proposed Action 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the enhanced underwriting requirements is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1079A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1079A1.pdf
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Paisa. Paisa has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Paisa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Paisa shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1080A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1080A1.pdf
    • Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara. Neither Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, nor Richard Parara has filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.pdf
    • An intentional radiator is ``[a] device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. �15.3(o). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.201. A certification is ``an equipment authorization issued by the Commission based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C � 552a(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 ? @ � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1095A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1095A1.pdf
    • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for AZ Prime One's willful and repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules and related orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1256A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1256A1.pdf
    • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1257A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1257A1.pdf
    • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1258A1.pdf
    • remain confidential. As set forth in detail in the confidential Appendix, we conclude that Alpheus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 4.9(f) of the Rules by failing to file an electronic Notification within 120 minutes and an Initial Communications Outage Report within 72 hours of discovering a reportable outage. B. Proposed Forfeiture Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1268A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1268A1.pdf
    • Final Report. As detailed more fully in the Confidential Appendix, we find that Verizon's Final Report was incomplete and inaccurate in several important respects. We therefore find that Verizon apparently willfully violated Section 4.11 of the Rules by filing a Final Report that was not true, complete and accurate. B. Proposed Forfeiture Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1274A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1274A1.pdf
    • was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Myers apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on the frequency 95.9 MHz in Lauderhill, Florida on July 21, 2009, February 4, 2010, and March 7, 2010, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1290A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1290A1.pdf
    • Taking into account the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude that a $20,000 proposed forfeiture is justified in light of AllCom's apparent failure to provide a response to the LOI. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that AllCom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.pdf
    • the Omnibus NAL, each of the companies listed in the Appendix provided evidence that they had, in fact, timely submitted a CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kurt A. Schroeder
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1346A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1346A1.pdf
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Blake. Blake has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Dexter Blake IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Blake shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-138A1.pdf
    • Liability for Forfeiture to Ayustar in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Ayustar submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Ayustar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1442A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1442A1.pdf
    • on its history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. LSM Radio's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining LSM Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-153A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-153A1.pdf
    • not in keeping with Commission precedent and that, in several instances, licensees were only admonished for public file violations. Gaston College also asserts that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its record of compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1592A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1592A1.pdf
    • offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Taking this standard into account, and based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Nassau Broadcasting III, L.L. C., licensee of Station WWEG(FM), Myersville, Maryland, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-15A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-15A1.pdf
    • dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Jerry and Deborah Stevens submitted a response to the NAL denying that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and requesting that the matter be dropped. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Jerry and Deborah Stevens' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1648A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1648A1.pdf
    • filed in 2009. Under the circumstances presented herein, we conclude that Turner engaged in the unauthorized transfer of control and unauthorized assignment of the 49 subject licenses in apparent willful violation of section 310(d) of the Act, and sections 25.119 and 1.948 of the Rules. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' In this regard, we note that every case presents a unique set of circumstances and turns on
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1654A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1654A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1657A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1657A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1659A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1659A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1671A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1671A1.pdf
    • us, we find that Ms. Lubin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequency 90.1 MHz from her residence in North Miami, Florida on September 9 and October 22, 2009, and on April 22 and May 12, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1707A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1707A1.pdf
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Christopher M. Myers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Myers will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1803A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1803A1.pdf
    • American Taxi nevertheless continued its unlicensed operations. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American Taxi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 152.3900 MHz from its business in Daytona Beach, Florida on September 27 and 28 and November 22, 2009. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.pdf
    • Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the years prior to 2006. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Amp'd Mobile, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.pdf
    • to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.pdf
    • violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Capital Telecommunications, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.pdf
    • writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.pdf
    • show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mechanicsville Telephone Company to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1907A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1907A1.pdf
    • again on February 11, 2010. Morris operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Morris operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1908A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1908A1.pdf
    • again on February 11, 2010. Brown operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Brown operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.pdf
    • we find that the companies listed in the Appendix did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1975A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1975A1.pdf
    • for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false certification that it had not violated the Communication's Act or any Commission rules during the preceding license term, although not made with the intent to deceive the Commission, had no reasonable basis and therefore, apparently violated section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. �1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. � 1.17 (``... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In any written or oral statement of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-19A1.pdf
    • 326 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''); and (3) the Commission has not complied with its obligations under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''). We reject these arguments, as explained in detail below. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2030A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2030A1.pdf
    • the unlicensed station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Chery apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating a radio station on 90.5 MHz in Spring Valley, New York without the requisite Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2040A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2040A1.pdf
    • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2041A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2041A1.pdf
    • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2043A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2043A1.pdf
    • 73.3526 of the Rules. Stone/Collins submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Stone/Collins does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Stone/Collins' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2044A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2044A1.pdf
    • of the Rules. Rodgson submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Rodgson's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Rodgson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2046A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2046A1.pdf
    • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that MGA is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2049A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2049A1.pdf
    • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2057A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2057A1.pdf
    • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Meridian's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government for the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2097A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2097A1.pdf
    • 951.500 MHz, but nonetheless continued to operate on that frequency. We therefore find that the violation was willful and repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Beacon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a Studio Transmitter Link on an unauthorized frequency. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with excessive power is $4,000 and for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2120A1.pdf
    • Based on the evidence before us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Mapleton apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained at the Station KXDZ main studio. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2156A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2156A1.pdf
    • evidence before us, we find that Mr. Smith apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain all required issues/programs lists in the station's public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000; (3) failure to repaint the antenna structure is $10,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2187A1.pdf
    • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs.'' 47 C.F.R � 74.801 47 C.F.R � 74.870. 47 C.F.R � 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R �� 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2188A1.pdf
    • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs.'' 47 C.F.R � 74.801 47 C.F.R � 74.870. 47 C.F.R � 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R �� 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2189A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2189A1.pdf
    • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs.'' 47 C.F.R � 74.801 47 C.F.R � 74.870. 47 C.F.R � 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R �� 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2190A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2190A1.pdf
    • Requested, to Comfort Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2191A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2191A1.pdf
    • Requested to Holiday Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2192A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2192A1.pdf
    • to Timber Ridge Lodge at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2193A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2193A1.pdf
    • Receipt Requested to Ridgway at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2194A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2194A1.pdf
    • to Best Western Rambler at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2195A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2195A1.pdf
    • to Platte Valley Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2220A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2220A1.pdf
    • id. (last visited November 22, 2010). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an ``intentional radiator'' as a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2226A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2226A1.pdf
    • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2235A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2235A1.pdf
    • based on inability to pay and imposed a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. On February 2, 2010, Ayustar filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its net losses rather than its gross revenues. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ayustar's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2240A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2240A1.pdf
    • radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Jammer World is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Jammer World to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2250A1.pdf
    • of the Rules. We therefore find that East Buchanan is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of $45,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing aid- compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii) of the Rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) for willful and repeated violation of sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and 20.19(d)(3(ii) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2268A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2268A1.pdf
    • the main studio does not have any designated personnel. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that J.M.J. Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station WQOR main studio during regular business hours. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2276A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2276A1.pdf
    • The violation also occurred on more than one day, and was therefore repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Coss apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KCKX(AM) in accordance with the station's authorized power as specified on its license. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2277A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2277A1.pdf
    • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for General Equipment's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.pdf
    • additional information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2295A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2295A1.pdf
    • lease, noncompliant radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Everbuying.com is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Everbuying.com to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2306A1.pdf
    • a license. Mr. de Almeida submitted a response to the Second NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture based on his claim that he did not operate a radio transmitter on an unlicensed basis and his inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. de Almeida's responses, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2309A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2309A1.pdf
    • unsolicited ads to consumers, and by terminating all business with the entities that the FCC has determined are apparently violating the junk fax rules. We therefore conclude that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL should not be imposed. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $13,500 issued to CyberData, Inc. in the July 18, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order WILL
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2319A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2319A1.pdf
    • Furthermore, licensees have the affirmative obligation to prevent misleading announcements respecting the contests that they conduct. They cannot rely on implications to accomplish that result. We therefore find that Good Karma violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the Contest. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the contest rules is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2338A1.pdf
    • day. The violation was willful because Dollar consciously and deliberately used its land mobile radios on the frequency 452.250 MHz without the requisite Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dollar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2347A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2347A1.pdf
    • until December 22, 2009, when WTB granted BASF's STA request. By operating station WPNZ510 after the license expiration date, BASF apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. BASF also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPNZ510. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-234A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-234A1.pdf
    • foregoing reasons, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' In another case involving the same licensee, we proposed a $16,000 forfeiture for very similar conduct. The events underlying that proceeding
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.pdf
    • additional information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2428A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2428A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a specific rule
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2435A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2435A1.pdf
    • a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that CT Communications is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in section 503 of the Act.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2436A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2436A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2439A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2439A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2440A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2440A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-24A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-24A1.pdf
    • to the NAL on January 15, 2009. In its Response, Mt. Rushmore argues that its violations were not willful, that the violations were corrected after the inspection took place, and that the violations were not discovered during a prior inspection. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-25A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-25A1.pdf
    • Liability for Forfeiture to Verizon in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules. Verizon submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Verizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-268A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-268A1.pdf
    • In its response, Abacus does not dispute any of the findings in the NAL, but requests a cancellation or reduction based on its inability to pay and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-269A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-269A1.pdf
    • an unauthorized location because it relied on the coordinates provided in its lease with the tower owner. In addition, SDACH requests that we cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture in light of SDACH's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining SDACH's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-26A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-26A1.pdf
    • to maintain the issues/programs lists was not willful, but merely an oversight by new management that took over in September 2006. R-S Broadcasting further claims that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of R-S Broadcasting's demonstrated inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining R-S Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-287A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-287A1.pdf
    • By operating station WPQD526 after the station's license expiration date of June 1, 2005, the University apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The University also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQD526. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.pdf
    • the Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.pdf
    • the Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-390A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-390A1.pdf
    • show no grant of authority ever issued by the Commission approving an assignment or transfer of control of station licenses concerning this frequency to Lubbock Aero. Thus, it appears that Lubbock Aero violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 123.300 MHz without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was committing or omitting the action in question, irrespective of any intent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-3A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-3A1.pdf
    • Such forfeiture amount may be adjusted upward or downward depending upon the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. In the instant case, we have taken into consideration Shop at Home Holding's failure over a period of more than two years to file corrective applications. On balance and after applying the factors set forth in Sections 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 is appropriate in this instance. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Shop at Home Holdings,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-455A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-455A1.pdf
    • of whether the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time broker that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-456A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-456A1.pdf
    • of whether the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time brokers that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf
    • list on July 1, 2004. See Complaint at 20, S.A. See Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 15 FCC Rcd 3236 (2000); Multimedia Cablevision, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 11 FCC Rcd 11202, 11208 (1996); Comark Cable Fund III v. Northwestern Indiana Telephone Co., 100 FCC2d 1244, 1259 (1985). 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, at � 29 (1998). We note that ``Defendants'' does not include Verizon Communications. See supra � 21. See Letter from Russ Smith to David Hunt, Senior Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau (April 15, 2005); see also Consumer.net LLC, et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-492A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-492A1.pdf
    • prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the 503(b) factors to the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Journal Broadcast Corporation, licensee of Station KJOT(FM), Boise, Idaho, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-580A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-580A1.pdf
    • Order of Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 8710, 8716-17 (2007) (rejecting licensee's argument that, under Section 503(b)(1)(B), an entity cannot be held liable for a continuing violation in a case involving the licensee's violations of several rules related to the Universal Service Fund ). See Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 11937. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. See 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 10-580 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-580 � � � � � F '' � � (c)
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-586A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-586A1.pdf
    • requested documents be provided ``within a reasonable period of time, which generally should not exceed 7 days.'' CRFI's explanation that the delay was caused by inadvertence or employee oversight is inadequate. As noted above, inadvertence or employee oversight do not excuse CRFI from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-632A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-632A1.pdf
    • (``Houston Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $18,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KFW will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-633A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-633A1.pdf
    • (``Houston Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(g), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KFW will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-669A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-669A1.pdf
    • to comply with the FCC's requirements concerning the marketing of radio frequency devices in the United States. Accordingly, we conclude that Phonejammer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing two models of phone jammers in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-690A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-690A1.pdf
    • the forfeiture upward.'' Finally, WXDJ argues that the ``national economy and the decrease in broadcaster revenues in general'' warrant a reduction in the forfeiture amount. We reject these arguments as explained in detail below. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-756A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-756A1.pdf
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Senat. Mr. Senat has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Balthazard Senat IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Senat will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-766A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-766A1.pdf
    • impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Cost Crunch's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-777A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-777A1.pdf
    • regular business hours. HTV filed a response (``Response'') on May 22, 2009. In its Response, HTV does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-77A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-77A1.pdf
    • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-782A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-782A1.pdf
    • to reduce the TPO during the inspection. Therefore, on January 7, 2010, the station exceeded the maximum TPO and maximum ERP. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Caribevision apparently willfully violated Section 74.735(b)(2) of the Rules by exceeding the maximum ERP for a digital LPTV station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-783A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-783A1.pdf
    • on the evidence before us, we find that Hubbard apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Hubbard apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, overpower nighttime operations, and not maintaining, and making available, a public inspection file are, respectively, $8,000, $4,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-784A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-784A1.pdf
    • evidence before us, we find that World Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that World Media apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, and violation of public file rules are, respectively, $8,000, $3,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-78A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-78A1.pdf
    • has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude under this standard that Doro is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-796A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-796A1.pdf
    • 80 days. As a result, Telefutura's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Telefutura apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment for its authorized DTV broadcast station, KFTU-DT, Douglas, Arizona. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-798A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-798A1.pdf
    • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1219542, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Burken received the NAL, Burken has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Burken Broadcasting, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Burken Broadcasting, LLC, shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-799A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-799A1.pdf
    • for operation of radio transmitters without a license, in violation of Section 301 of the Act. Despite evidence that Tropicana received the NAL, Tropicana has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Tropicana Products, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Tropicana Products, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-79A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-79A1.pdf
    • that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that East Kentucky Network is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.pdf
    • grant of certification for the MSR 300 on September 24, 2009. See FCC ID XOP-5840-SL-3000. See LOI Response at 4 and Exhibit C. Our investigation did not uncover similar evidence with respect to the marketing of the MSR 200. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. See LOI Response at 3-4. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-7 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-7 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-800A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-800A1.pdf
    • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1014422, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MRBI received the NAL, MRBI has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-801A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-801A1.pdf
    • with a valid authorization granted by the Commission, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Shimmick-Obayashi received the NAL, Shimmick-Obayashi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture, shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-80A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-80A1.pdf
    • failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-81A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-81A1.pdf
    • the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that TCT Mobile is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to file the required status reports in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules and for its apparent willful violation of a Commission order to provide information. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-829A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-829A1.pdf
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Rolon. Rolon has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marixsa Rolon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Rolon shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.pdf
    • Communications, Inc. (October 14, 2009). See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Esq. and Denise N. Smith, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 13, 2009). Id. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(e)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). To date, Firefly still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-830A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-830A1.pdf
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Reid. Reid has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ronald Reid IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Reid shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-83A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-83A1.pdf
    • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-84A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-84A1.pdf
    • that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that Airo is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.pdf
    • Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 � 112. We note that 7-Eleven's web site promotes four handset models for use with its SPEAK OUT program: the Sanyo 2400, LG5225, Nokia 1600 and Motorola C139. See http://www.7-eleven.com/NewsRoom/NewsRoom2008/7ElevenMakesPrepaidWireles sMore Competitive. Thus, it does not appear that 7-Eleven falls within the de minimis exception. See 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(e). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-90A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-90A1.pdf
    • Forfeiture to ECPI in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules. ECPI submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining ECPI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.pdf
    • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. � 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as ``any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.pdf
    • John Marick, CEO, Consumer Cellular, to Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 11, 2009) (``LOI Response''). LOI Response at 1. Id. at 2. LOI Response at 1-2. See Consumer Cellular, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report (filed November 8, 2009) at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020347130. LOI Response at 2. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.pdf
    • $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry); Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3688 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry). 47 U.S.C. � 610(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.pdf
    • benchmarks is appropriate with regard to ``service providers that are not Tier I nationwide providers, including regional and smaller providers, such as Tier II and Tier III carriers, and other service providers such as resellers and MVNOs.''). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 D E `` � � (c) � &`#$ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.pdf
    • such as resellers and MVNOs.''). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). To date, Circle K still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. We note that on January 11, 2010, Circle K did file its report that was due January 15, 2010. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' `` � � � � � &`#$ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-934A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-934A1.pdf
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Movida sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.movidacelular.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 � 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to ``service providers that are not Tier
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.pdf
    • Commission, to David Inns, President, GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug (December 1, 2009). See Letter from Todd Slamowitz, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP, counsel for GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (December 15, 2009). (``Response'') See Response at 2. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(e)(1). Id. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-937A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-937A1.pdf
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Liberty sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.libertywireless.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 � 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to ``service providers that are not Tier
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.pdf
    • See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, DA 10-85 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., released January 14, 2010). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(h). See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 � 112. As of March 2, 2010, PlatinumTel's web site did not evidence compliance with section 20.19(h) of the Rules. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' ( � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-995A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-995A1.pdf
    • the ``American Dad'' episode does not excuse in any way Fox's obligation to provide the requested information. In light of well-established Commission precedent, therefore, Fox's failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI and March 19th Letter constitutes apparent willful and repeated violations of a Commission Order and of Section 73.1015. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1000A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1000A1.pdf
    • he consciously operated his CB station with an amplifier, we find that the apparent violations were willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Hays apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and sections 95.410 and 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Voip Alliance and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Voip Alliance, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Touch-Tel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Touch-Tel USA, LLC. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Phone Club and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Phone Club Corporation. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.pdf
    • noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nu Era Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise DigitGlobal Communications and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.pdf
    • We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Straightel and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1043A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1043A1.pdf
    • section 301 of the Act. American Taxi submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture arguing that: (1) it was operating pursuant to a license, and (2) it was never warned that its actions violated the Act. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining American Taxi's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1050A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1050A1.pdf
    • June 12, 2009. In its Response, Lazer Broadcasting argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled, because Lazer Broadcasting is not a licensee, or reduced, because there was no harm caused by its failure to update both antenna structure registrations. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Based on our review
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1054A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1054A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Bazile. Mr. Bazile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marckenson Bazile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Bazile shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1062A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1062A1.pdf
    • the main studio on the day of inspection as required by section 73.3526 of the Rules. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Wall apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WLSW's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1093A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1093A1.pdf
    • of the alien ownership restrictions. Am�rica M�vil is therefore apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $8,000 for its willful violation of section 310(b)(4) of the Act and the 2007 MO&O and Declaratory Ruling. The Commission's rules provide, however, that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation ... and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We conclude that Am�rica M�vil's ability to pay warrants an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount. To ensure that a proposed forfeiture
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1111A1.pdf
    • communications to facilitate the activities of an adult individual and his or her immediate family members. See 47 C.F.R. �95.179. A non-individual (any entity that is not an individual - such as corporations, partnerships, associations, governmental units etc.) is not eligible to obtain a license for a new GMRS system. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1123A1.pdf
    • but the public inspection file was not made available at that time. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available, during more than one visit, a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain a main studio with a meaningful staff presence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.pdf
    • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1164A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1164A1.pdf
    • WL 242469 (OET, May 13, 1996). The LawMate 500 mW 2.4 GHz and 1 W 2.4 GHz transmitters operate on frequencies outside of the authorized amateur radio service bands, including restricted frequencies listed in section 15.205(a). Thus, these devices are not amateur radio devices exempt from the equipment certification requirements. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1165A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1165A1.pdf
    • Rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 74.801, 74.851. We note, however, that these four models of wireless microphones do not operate on frequencies allocated for low power auxiliary stations under Part 74. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.802. Accordingly, these wireless microphones are not eligible for certification as Part 74 devices. . See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. � 1.17 (``... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1170A1.pdf
    • the VNR material seeking to persuade them. We find by a preponderance of the evidence that Fox's airing of VNR material on Station KMSP-TV's June 19, 2006 news program without providing a sponsorship identification announcement violated section 317 of the Act and section 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. The Fifteen Day Period for Fox's NAL Response was Reasonable under Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules provides that when the Bureau issues a Notice of Apparent Liability, the ``[r]espondent will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1174A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Antonio Robinson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Robinson shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1183A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1183A1.pdf
    • any of these transactions until after each had been consummated, and (ii) did not disclose four of the eight transactions until the Enforcement Bureau's investigation and only after WCB had granted the applications. The violation periods range from approximately 2.5 months to approximately 3.5 months. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing Rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1189A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1189A1.pdf
    • should apply may request a refund. All such requests must be submitted in writing, with an explanation of the grounds for the request, to: Office of the Managing Director Office of the Chief Financial Officer Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW (Attn: Chief, RROG, Rm 1-A724) Washington, DC 20554 See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5). Other statutory amounts may apply based on the status of the licensee. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(1), (2). In addition, in determining the amount of the forfeiture penalty, the Commission may consider other statutory factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1194A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1194A1.pdf
    • where the file was located. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Spirit apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file at its main studio and apparently willfully failed to make available its public inspection file upon request. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, for AM tower fencing is $7,000, and for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1217A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1217A1.pdf
    • took affirmative steps to terminate the lease with the unidentified renter; (4) a broadcasting outfit known as WBIG is responsible for any unlicensed operations on 95.9 MHz and 91.7 MHz; and (5) he does not hold any pecuniary interest in WBIG. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Petition, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1233A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1233A1.pdf
    • (2) they believed the radio station complied with all FCC regulations; (3) they ceased operating the station as soon as they became aware that it was illegal; and (4) they do not have the financial resources to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Alleyne's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1243A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1243A1.pdf
    • compliance measures described above, the unusual circumstances preventing construction, and the appointment of a receiver are all relevant to our consideration of any forfeiture, and in this case to our determination to impose no forfeiture penalty. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., in the above captioned proceeding WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent both by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., at 2200 East Parks Highway, Wasilla, Alaska,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1244A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1244A1.pdf
    • record and based upon additional information provided by RAMCO, we are persuaded that RAMCO did not own the antenna structure during the violations cited in the NAL and agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to RAMCO Broadband Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to RAMCO Broadband Services at 726 US Highway 202 Suite 320-119, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2737. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional Director
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.pdf
    • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Dezco Communications, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Dezco Communications WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Dezco Communications, Inc., Attn. Ronald F. Zeiler, President, 13506 S. Kenton St., Crestwood, IL 60445. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.pdf
    • an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Galaxy Internet Services, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Galaxy Internet Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Galaxy Internet Services, Attn. Robert Carp, President, 188 Needham St., Suite 110R, Newton, MA 02464. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-125A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-125A1.pdf
    • of the Rules defines an ``intentional radiator'' as a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). (last visited on 1/24/2011). We note that the device is currently listed on the web site with the date ``January 16, 2010.'' See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. �1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1266A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1266A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $22,000 to Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Judith V. Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Judith V. Smith shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1272A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1272A1.pdf
    • was unavailable to the public for a period of four months. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that HK Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available the Station KFOX public inspection file at the station's main studio. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1311A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1311A1.pdf
    • find that Rapidwave apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating an intentional radiator in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with its Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1312A1.pdf
    • 5445 MHz, 5650 MHz, 5670 MHz, and 5725 MHz in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Sling apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on January 5 and 10, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1313A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1313A1.pdf
    • the Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ayustar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1314A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1314A1.pdf
    • operate on the frequencies 5540 MHz or 5600 MHz in Kansas City, Missouri. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Insight apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on February 4 and 18, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1323A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1323A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Rhodd. Mr. Rhodd has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mikhail Rhodd IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mikhail Rhodd shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-135A1.pdf
    • 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an ``intentional radiator'' as a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1386A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1386A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $12,000 to Miller Communications. Miller Communications has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Miller Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violations of section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Miller Communications, LLC shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1435A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1435A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Patrick Michael Ford, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Ford shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1468A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1468A1.pdf
    • manual in willful and repeated violation of section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the Rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or any Rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. Under section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, we may assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, broadcast licensee or cable operator a forfeiture of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1475A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1475A1.pdf
    • backup dispatch channel rather than its licensed main dispatch channel on 159.150 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gutierrez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the LVPD's licensed operations, on February 15, 2011, and February 16, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1491A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1491A1.pdf
    • its PLMRS station without Commission authority from June 15, 2007 until September 10, 2010, when its STA request was granted. By operating station WQFD453 for a period of more than three years after the license had been cancelled, Northeast Utilities apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.pdf
    • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1503A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1503A1.pdf
    • was causing direct interference with air traffic control. Power admitted that the station used this transmitter from March 19, 2010 until June 11, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Power apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules by utilizing a non-certified LPFM transmitter. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1505A1.pdf
    • to public file maintenance''; (4) its broadcast of ``programming responsive to community needs and interests during the two years prior to the NAL,'' and (5) its post-inspection efforts to remedy the public inspection file violation. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining CBC's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1506A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1506A1.pdf
    • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand, five hundred dollars ($17,500) for violations of sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), 11.35(a), 73.3526, and 74.532(e) of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., shall also send electronic notification to WR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1528A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1528A1.pdf
    • the Commission's tower rules and $10,000 for the apparent violation of the Commission's public inspection file requirements. On December 19, 2008, Taylor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Taylor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1529A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1529A1.pdf
    • Act and section 63.18 of the Rules because it failed to obtain Commission approval before providing international telecommunications service. The Commission has consistently imposed forfeiture penalties in the amount of $100,000 for failing to obtain an international section 214 authorization before providing international telecommunications service. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' There is no evidence before us to suggest that the base amount should be adjusted in any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1536A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1536A1.pdf
    • which in turn, could have impacted the Auction No. 86 results. Thus, the Commission was unable to determine both the actual amount owed by VTel, and whether VTel was still entitled to the small business bidding credit, until after Mr. Hewlett's full income was disclosed. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Consistent with Commission precedent, we find that a base forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1538A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1538A1.pdf
    • not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Meriden and Jefferson systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1539A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1539A1.pdf
    • action does not nullify or mitigate any prior violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file the required FCC Form 320s for the Perry and Lecompton systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1540A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1540A1.pdf
    • action does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Pottawatomie system for calendar years 2009 and 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1572A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1572A1.pdf
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Sling. Sling has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Sling Broadband, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Sling shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1577A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1577A1.pdf
    • the NAL acknowledging that he committed the violation, but denying that he ``used the radio knowing that it was illegal.'' Mr. Lindor also requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture because he asserts that he cannot afford the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lindor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1578A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1578A1.pdf
    • of the Rules. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Lebron apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1579A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1579A1.pdf
    • he had ``made the changes [he] had to.'' Mr. Hays requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture, however, because he lives solely on social security benefits and asserts that, as a result, he cannot afford to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Hays's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-157A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-157A1.pdf
    • the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' As we explain below, having considered the statutory factors, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a radio station without Commission authority. Based on the record in this proceeding, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000 for Scottsdale Lexus's unauthorized operations. We note that the base forfeiture amount is subject to adjustment, either upward or downward. Here, however, we find no basis for any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1580A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1580A1.pdf
    • impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Western Aviation's willful or repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules for the reasons set forth in the NAL and herein. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1584A1.pdf
    • and apparently willfully violating section 333 of the Act by maliciously interfering with the USCG on Marine Channel 16. In his response, Perka admits to the findings in the NAL, but requests a reduction based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Perka's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.pdf
    • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. � 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as ``any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1641A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1641A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1651A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1651A1.pdf
    • still has not been assigned a community unit number or physical system number. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that St. George apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1801 of the Rules by failing to submit a registration statement with the Commission on FCC Form 322. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000; and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. Cable signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1661A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1661A1.pdf
    • Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers, and Other Jamming Devices, Retailers Advised that the Marketing or Sale of Devices Designed to Block, Jam, or Interfere with Authorized Radio Communications Is Strictly Prohibited in the U.S., Public Notice, DA 11-249 (Feb. 9, 2011), available at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement; New Generation Hobbies, Citation, DA 11-1164 (July 1, 2011). See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5). See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See id. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). We expressly reserve the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1675A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1675A1.pdf
    • the NAL, we will not consider them here. We also deny Mr. Skalecki's request for an evidentiary hearing under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, which states that ``[a]t the discretion of the Commission, a forfeiture penalty may be determined against a person .. after notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Commission or an administrative law judge....'' Section 1.80(g) of the Rules states that procedures for hearings ``will ordinarily be followed only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture....'' Section 1.80(g) of the Rules further states that ``these procedures may be followed whenever the Commission, in its discretion, determines that they will better serve the ends of justice.'' Accordingly, the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1704A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1704A1.pdf
    • constitute issues/programs lists and, in any event, were not in the public file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Meade apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WMMG's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public files rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf
    • opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Blue Casa, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on Blue Casa. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to Blue Casa Communications, Inc. WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Katherine Barker Marshall, Attorney, Arent Fox LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-5339. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1720A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1720A1.pdf
    • for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545 (Enf. Bur. 2003) ($10,000 forfeiture for a non-responsive reply to an LOI); Digital Antenna, Inc., Sunrise, Florida, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7600 (Spectrum Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2007) ($11,000 forfeiture for failure to provide complete responses to an LOI). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See id. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1721A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1721A1.pdf
    • EAS equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Upper Peninsula apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Powers, Michigan. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1722A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1722A1.pdf
    • operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1730A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1730A1.pdf
    • of $10,000 against Mr. Morey for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Morey submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting that he ``is in no position to be able to pay'' the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Morey's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1737A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1737A1.pdf
    • the NAL was issued after the expiration of the statute of limitations, Clarion claims in the alternative that it is entitled to a reduction in the amount of the proposed forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Clarion's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1738A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1738A1.pdf
    • ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of section 1.903(a) of the rules. on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both regular mail and by certified
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1743A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1743A1.pdf
    • forfeiture against Mr. Fleurinor for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Fleurinor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting the forfeiture ``would create an impossible burden for Mr. Fleurinor to bear or satisfy.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Fleurinor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1745A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1745A1.pdf
    • failed to notify the Commission that it had acquired antenna structure number 1246297. Based on the evidence before us, we find that P&Y Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure number 1246297. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file forms or required information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-174A1.pdf
    • modifying or cancelling the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for See Through Windows's willful and repeated violation of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows & Doors LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1750A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1750A1.pdf
    • station consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Criteser apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1755A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1755A1.pdf
    • that it had not maintained a public file since the public library, where they previously maintained their public file, closed "several years ago." Accordingly, we find that R.J. willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a local public inspection file. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000; operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000; and failing to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1756A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1756A1.pdf
    • time from the San Francisco Office to respond. In his Response, Roberts acknowledges his involvement with PCR, but argues that he is not associated with the transmissions of PCR. Roberts also argues that he is ``financially unable'' to pay the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.pdf
    • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.pdf
    • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Intercel, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Intercel WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc., Attn. Joseph Gatt, CEO, 3914 Centreville Rd., Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1775A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1775A1.pdf
    • because Mr. Cernogg operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cernogg apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1777A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1777A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for AMS's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NALs and herein. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1779A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1779A1.pdf
    • 7 and 11, 2011, an agent from the Houston Office observed Station KBRZ operating with its daytime power of 3200 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ACB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1786A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1786A1.pdf
    • Requested, to Fireside Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1787A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1787A1.pdf
    • the Dublin House Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-178A1.pdf
    • WWRR installed at either location from the time Bold Gold purchased the station in 2006 until February 2010. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Bold Gold apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install the required EAS equipment for Station WWRR. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.pdf
    • Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1798A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1798A1.pdf
    • corrected all of the violations set forth in the NAL and requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture due to its limited station funding which ``relies entirely on donations from the listener community.'' III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Consolidated Radio's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1802A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1802A1.pdf
    • found that the gate on the northeast side of the Antenna Structure was still open. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Equity apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the antenna structure with an effective locked fence or enclosure. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1807A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1807A1.pdf
    • over its authorized nighttime, post-sunset and pre-sunrise power for more than one day; and conclude that CRNI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KPIO in accordance with the Station's authorized power, as specified on the Station's license, on more than one day. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1809A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1809A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-180A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-180A1.pdf
    • MHz at the Torrance Airport, an action that violates the licensing requirements of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that South Bay Aviation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1812A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1812A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1822A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1822A1.pdf
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $25,000 to Spirit. Spirit has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Spirit Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1825A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1825A1.pdf
    • forfeiture based on its inability to pay the forfeiture. On July 7, 2011, Andrews Tower stated that the Tower was ``in all respects lit in accordance with Commission requirements'' and that it had obtained estimates for the demolition of the Tower. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Andrews Tower's response, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-182A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-182A1.pdf
    • February 25, 2010, by Rejoynetwork, LLC, IS DENIED, and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rejoynetwork, LLC is liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1834A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1834A1.pdf
    • station. Because he consciously operated with unauthorized amplifiers, we find that the apparent violation was willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Perry apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and section 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter with two amplifiers. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-184A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-184A1.pdf
    • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cricket, the base forfeiture is $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. Given the totality of the circumstances, we find a significant forfeiture appropriate. The Commission has stated that ``[we rely] heavily on
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.pdf
    • companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Unintec, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Unitec WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Unitec Hospitality Service, Attn: Walter E. Bader, President, 122 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80209. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.pdf
    • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1911A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1911A1.pdf
    • on the evidence before us, we find that CIT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(1) and 74.851(f) of the Rules by manufacturing and marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, two models of the Modulus video assist transmitters, in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1914A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1914A1.pdf
    • repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure for over two months, and by failing to update the ownership information for the Antenna Structure for over two years. B. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. The base forfeiture for failure to make required notifications, including ownership notifications, is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1919A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1919A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to St. George. St. George has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, St. George Cable, Inc. LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35(a), 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a) and 76.1801 of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. St. George Cable, Inc. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.pdf
    • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.pdf
    • Issued by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau -FCC- 47 C.F.R. �� 54.401(a)(1) and 54.405. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Lifeline and Link Up, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 26 FCC Rcd 9022 at para. 9 (2011). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 180(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). See 47 U.S.C. � 214. PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 $ $ ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1975A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1975A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $15,000 to Mr. Criteser. Mr. Criteser has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, John E. Criteser, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. John E. Criteser, Jr. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1976A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1976A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Neal Davis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Neal Davis shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1977A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1977A1.pdf
    • EAS equipment had not been operational since the station was vandalized in December of 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MMG apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KRDD(AM) EAS equipment. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.pdf
    • Competition and Broadband Reporting (2011) (regarding filings due March 1, 2012), available at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf (FCC Form 477 Instructions). We attach a list of Frequently Asked Questions to provide guidance for the most common filing concerns. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.7001, 43.11; FCC Form 477 Instructions at 5, 14-16, 19. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 180(b); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 @ A D l D $ $ ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1998A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1998A1.pdf
    • amount for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for ``[e]gregious misconduct,'' or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an ``[i]ntentional violation'' or ``[r]epeated or continuous violation.'' Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2012A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2012A1.pdf
    • obtain Commission approval before consummating a substantial transfer of control of a domestic Section 214 authorization. Iowa Telecom did not file an application for Commission approval until December 14, 2009, more than 6 months after its July 1, 2009 transfer of control. B. Proposed Forfeiture In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2034A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2034A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2035A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2035A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a specific rule
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2042A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2042A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2060A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2060A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2061A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2061A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2075A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2075A1.pdf
    • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2076A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2076A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2077A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2077A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2078A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2078A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2079A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2079A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid compatibility requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2080A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2080A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-216A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-216A1.pdf
    • a public file are reasonable, here, Community Television did not briefly delay access to the file - it denied any access, absent an appointment. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community Television apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527(c) by failing to make available Station KCET's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-229A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-229A1.pdf
    • most recent license application. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that CBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. We also find that CBC apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (2) violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-231A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-231A1.pdf
    • that Media East apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at the Station WLGT main studio. We also find that Media East apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file at the time of inspection. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-232A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-232A1.pdf
    • channels. Because Mr. Aversa knowingly operated on Marine Safety Channel 16 and other Marine channels, we find that the apparent violation is willful. Moreover, because agents observed Mr. Aversa's unlicensed operations on three separate occasions (all of which occurred after Mr. Aversa received multiple audio warnings from the USCG), we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-246A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-246A1.pdf
    • device; and To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether the equipment authorization held by Shenzhen under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should be revoked. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(3)(A), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, whether a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) shall be issued against Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating sections 302(b) and 333 of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules. IT
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-248A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-248A1.pdf
    • a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order at issue here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.pdf
    • to Use ``Cell Jammers'' and Other Equipment that Blocks, Jams, or Interferes with Authorized Radio Communications in the U.S., FCC Enforcement Advisory, DA 11-250 (2011). See 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. � 2.803. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(c)-(d). See 47 U.S.C. � 302a(c); 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 w x $ $ ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x ҍ� � ��(c)���!��'' �R)&� �A�� "���\��v`` � 6� �� � � � tm tm � � � � }y6 -
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-258A1.pdf
    • occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 3, and April 7, 2010, Mr. Moreno apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-263A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-263A1.pdf
    • (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Foursquare Gospel for the violations listed above. Despite evidence that Foursquare Gospel received the NAL, Foursquare Gospel has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel DBA Radio Station KFSG FM, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.6(a), 17.47(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel DBA Radio Station KFSG
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-264A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-264A1.pdf
    • on the structure's FAA determination of ``no hazard'' in violation of Section 17.23 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Waldec received the NAL, Waldec has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Waldec Enterprises, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.23 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Waldec Enterprises, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-273A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-273A1.pdf
    • find that Utah Broadband apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating intentional radiators in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with their Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-289A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-289A1.pdf
    • entities violating such agreement. We therefore conclude that the proposed forfeiture in the NAL issued to Ureach should not be imposed because it did not have a ``high degree of involvement in, or actual notice of, the unlawful activity.'' ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $9,000 issued to Ureach Technologies, Inc. in the July 17, 2008 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-292A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-292A1.pdf
    • the subject conversations, without providing the required notice, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We note that Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., the parent company of the Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-306A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-306A1.pdf
    • the Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that AT&T apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-352A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-352A1.pdf
    • public inspection file and found that it was missing nine quarterly issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WWIZ's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.pdf
    • proposed amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Think 12 and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.pdf
    • this NAL and Order have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to provide certain information. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of $29,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each Company listed in Appendix I of this Order is hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARANT LIABLILITY FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty nine thousand dollars ($29,000) each for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-373A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-373A1.pdf
    • more than one day, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Spanish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 21241.5 MHz with an antenna azimuth of approximately 160�, a frequency and antenna azimuth not authorized in its license. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-394A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-394A1.pdf
    • lights from October 1, 2009 to March 23, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KFW apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47 of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours between October 1, 2009 and March 23, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-408A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-408A1.pdf
    • representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The SecurityMan SM-302T is certified under FCC ID TW4-AT202-900M to operate between 906 - 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nationwide Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Nationwide Telecom, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Calmtel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Calmtel USA, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Diamond Phone and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Diamond Phone Card, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.pdf
    • the proposed amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise USA Teleport and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that USA Teleport, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-431A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-431A1.pdf
    • than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 16, August 24 and August 31, 2010, Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-443A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-443A1.pdf
    • was operating overpower on February 26, 2010, it continued its overpower operations on September 22, 2010 and September 24, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ace of Hearts apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 74.1235(e) of the Rules by operating above its authorized transmitter output power. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for the use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-449A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-449A1.pdf
    • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Kacy Rankine IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of section 301 of the Act. on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rankine's
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-457A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-457A1.pdf
    • agents of the consequences of refusing to allow an inspection of a radio station. Based on the record evidence, we find that Ira Jones apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act and section 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to permit inspection of his CB radio station. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-472A1.pdf
    • were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequencies 92.9 MHz, 93.7 MHz, and 104.3 MHz, on March 12, May 6, June 15, and July 23, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-475A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-475A1.pdf
    • and section 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules by delivering four unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American West Advertising is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American West is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-479A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-479A1.pdf
    • By operating station WPMH780 after the license expiration date, Shubat apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Shubat also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPMH780 while continuing to operate the station beyond its license term. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-47A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-47A1.pdf
    • to Premier RV Resorts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-48A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-48A1.pdf
    • had failed to function properly since December 2009, and that effective repairs were not made until April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that NCBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of Station KFSD's EAS equipment. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-521A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-521A1.pdf
    • evidence, that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Fox is
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-523A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-523A1.pdf
    • evidence, that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Access.1 is
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-549A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-549A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Aversa. Mr. Aversa has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Vincent E. Aversa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act and section 80.13 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Aversa will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-550A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-550A1.pdf
    • Jerry Russell dba Custom Cable at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-567A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-567A1.pdf
    • occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 16 and June 29, 2010, Mr. Bazile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-57A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-57A1.pdf
    • must meet to be considered compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes, and establish deadlines by which wireless service providers, including resellers and Mobile Virtual Network Operators, are required to offer specified numbers or percentages of handsets per air interface that comply with the relevant standard. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE of 2 FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 * � � $ $ * ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x ҍ� � ��(c)���!��'' �R)&� �A�� "���\��v`` � 6� �� * * * c c
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.pdf
    • companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-5A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-5A1.pdf
    • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 95.409. 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-629A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-629A1.pdf
    • it was notified of the outage on July 8, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Andrews Tower apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Tower after sunset. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-630A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-630A1.pdf
    • monitoring of the Tower's lights. Also, Miller did not maintain an automatic light monitoring system. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Miller apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to make observations of the Tower's lights at least once each 24 hours. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-633A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-633A1.pdf
    • Harrah's took after the agents' inspection on April 8, 2010. The Commission consistently has stated that ``corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.'' Moreover, Harrah's concedes that it had not even applied for a license until after receipt of the LOI. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a station without Commission authority and a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. Although we find no basis here for a downward adjustment given the circumstances of this case, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the total $13,000 base
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-65A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-65A1.pdf
    • 1045666 still shows the previous structure owner as the owner. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that RAMCO apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in structure ownership from January 2, 2010 until January 12, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; and (2) failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-676A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-676A1.pdf
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $6,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violations of section 17.47 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KFW will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-704A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-704A1.pdf
    • 17745. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached ``Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.'' 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-724A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-724A1.pdf
    • Based on the facts and circumstances described above, we find that A Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to comply with the terms of the Order and Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and A Radio and issued pursuant to sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not specify a base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with a Commission order. The Commission has stated, however that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-734A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-734A1.pdf
    • they did not notice the warning alert of the light outage before May 18, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CBS apparently repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act, and section 17.51(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1014523. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.pdf
    • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.pdf
    • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.pdf
    • of the Act and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, USAT's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, USAT SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion & Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-809A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-809A1.pdf
    • WIBL's public inspection file and found that it was missing four quarters of issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Pilot Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WIBL's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because Station WIBL's public file was mostly complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-810A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-810A1.pdf
    • a ``meaningful management and staff presence.'' Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mattoon Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the main studio for Stations WLBH and WLBH-FM during regular business hours. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the AM fencing rule and $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-812A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-812A1.pdf
    • 333. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). An ``intentional radiator'' is a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-816A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-816A1.pdf
    • we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, section 1.80, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Frandsen is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Frandsen Media Company, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-824A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-824A1.pdf
    • the Rules. Mr. Smith submitted responses to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture, his prompt actions to remedy the violations, and his remorse. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Smith's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.pdf
    • why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, each cable operator sufficiently demonstrated that it had provided the advanced notice required under our rules. Therefore, we find that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued in the above captioned proceedings WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each counsel of record in the above captioned proceedings. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION P. Michele Ellison Chief, Enforcement Bureau Comcast
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-829A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-829A1.pdf
    • was willful. Moreover, because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Alcime apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-830A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-830A1.pdf
    • willful. Moreover, because the unlicensed operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Ford apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-831A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-831A1.pdf
    • Because the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Morey apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 88.3 MHz in St. Petersburg, Florida. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-832A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-832A1.pdf
    • on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31 and on October 6, 2010, Mr. Rhodd apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-833A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-833A1.pdf
    • we find the apparent violation willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Robinson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-836A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-836A1.pdf
    • occasion, we find that the violations of section 303(n) of the Act were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow inspection of radio transmission equipment on May 6, 2010, and June 15, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to allow inspection of radio equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-860A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-860A1.pdf
    • apparent violation was willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Millwood apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-861A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-861A1.pdf
    • on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 8, 9, and 10, 2010, Mr. Lindor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-870A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-870A1.pdf
    • normal business hours and did not contain the station's service contour map, political file, or any issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Consolidated Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000, for public inspection file violations is $10,000 and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-871A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-871A1.pdf
    • violation willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 27, 2010, Ms. Smith apparently willfully violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by Commission agents to inspect the radio installation located inside her residence while the station was in operation. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-874A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-874A1.pdf
    • and June 2, 2008, and he submitted cell phone records in support of this claim. Torres also submitted his most recent three years of federal tax returns to support his request for a reduction based on an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Torres's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-876A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-876A1.pdf
    • general manager also admitted that he had not been properly maintaining the antenna site. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sickafus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain two of Station WWSM's antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-881A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-881A1.pdf
    • two years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Warmath apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file for Station WIRJ(AM). Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000, for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000, and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-886A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-886A1.pdf
    • before us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Lazer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained and made available at the Station KSSB main studio. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-887A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-887A1.pdf
    • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to Brown. Brown has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Robert Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Brown will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-889A1.pdf
    • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to Morris. Morris has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Lloyd Morris IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Morris will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-890A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-890A1.pdf
    • on its history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. World Media's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining World Media's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-8A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-8A1.pdf
    • By operating station WPKM300 after the station's license expiration date of April 16, 2007, Call Mobile apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Call Mobile also acted in apparent violation of section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPKM300. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-900A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-900A1.pdf
    • before us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available complete public inspection files for Stations KQQZ and KZQZ and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with an improper radiation pattern for the pertinent time of day is $7,000, for failure to make required measurements is $2,000, and for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-902A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-902A1.pdf
    • evidence before us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available public inspection files for Stations WQQX and WQQW and willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-924A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-924A1.pdf
    • C.F.R. �� 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). An ``intentional radiator'' is a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-926A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-926A1.pdf
    • operation. Because Mr. Clarke consciously operated the station on more than one day, the apparent violation was willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Clarke apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-938A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-938A1.pdf
    • $10,000 against the licensee for violation of section 73.3526 of the Rules. Media East submitted a response to the NAL denying that its public inspection file was incomplete and requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Media East's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-940A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-940A1.pdf
    • 2003. Mr. Peter's admitted that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Peters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WHAW's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-941A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-941A1.pdf
    • The station manager confirmed that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ms. Woofter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WVRW's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-954A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-954A1.pdf
    • issues/programs lists are available in the Station KSKT-CA public inspection file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Skies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules by failing to maintain the TV issues/programs lists and make them available in Station KSKT's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-971A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-971A1.pdf
    • $20,000 against Ms. Lubin for violation of section 301 of the Act. Ms. Lubin submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture because she claims she did not, and has not ever, operated an unlicensed radio station. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ms. Lubin's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-976A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-976A1.pdf
    • the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. The Commission has found that the marketing of each separate unauthorized or non-compliant model constitutes a separate violation subject to the $7,000 base forfeiture amount. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation, or each
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-978A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-978A1.pdf
    • without EAS equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CRS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install operational EAS equipment while the station was in operation. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-982A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-982A1.pdf
    • EAS on more than one day, we find the apparent violation to be repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Comcast apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 11.35(a) and 11.51(h) of the Rules by failing to ensure that its EAS equipment was fully functional for all customers. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-984A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-984A1.pdf
    • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-98A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-98A1.pdf
    • any agency thereof shall be developed, procured, or otherwise acquired, including offshore procurement, under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security.). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-990A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-990A1.pdf
    • Los Angeles Office, Bondy filed a response on August 21, 2009, arguing that he did not commit the violations, that he did not refuse to allow the inspection, and that he lacks the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.pdf
    • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.pdf
    • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise 88 Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that 88 Telecom Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1038A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1038A1.pdf
    • agent for inspection, we find the apparent violation willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on February 25, 2012, Mr. Ragan apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his radio station and equipment. C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-107A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-107A1.pdf
    • in Pompano Beach. Furthermore, the Miami Office confirmed that Mr. Dorvilus registered the domain name for www.visionfm.org, and is doing business as ``Radio VisionFM 927, Inc.'' Because Mr. Dorvilus operated this station consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-108A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-108A1.pdf
    • the NAL admitting that he allowed someone to place radio equipment in his space but denying participation in the ``breaking of any law.'' Mr. Clarke also requested a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Clarke's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-109A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-109A1.pdf
    • of the station's main studio approximately eight months prior to the inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Casarez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KCRX(AM) EAS equipment. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-111A1.pdf
    • and on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-112A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-112A1.pdf
    • the station and on more than one day, the apparent violation was both willful and repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cheriza apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-115A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-115A1.pdf
    • violation was not willful, that it made a good faith effort to comply with the Rules, and that it paid a third-party radio company to program its radios to ensure no violations took place. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Cerritos Ford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-136A1.pdf
    • that the station had ever maintained these items in its public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that L&R apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-154A1.pdf
    • the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.2, and the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��0.91, 0.291, this Declaratory Ruling in WC Docket No. 07-135and CC Docket No. 01-92IS ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau 49See47 U.S.C. �� 312, 503. 5047 U.S.C. �503(b)(1)(B); see also47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(2). 5147 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules three times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. � 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-157A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-157A1.pdf
    • the single public inspection file contained no issues/programs lists after 2001. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KM Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for Stations KQMG and KQMG-FM. E. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; (3) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.pdf
    • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. � 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as ``any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-194A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-194A1.pdf
    • one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Richards TV apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Jerusalem, Ohio. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-197A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-197A1.pdf
    • and empty on two occasions. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Taylor Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station's main studio during regular business hours. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-198A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-198A1.pdf
    • that it did not contain any quarterly issues/programs lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Curran apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-211A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-211A1.pdf
    • these considerations and the admission by the Companies that they failed to obtain prior Commission approval of the license transfers, we conclude that the Companies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express terms of the license, and therefore a forfeiture is warranted. B. Proposed Forfeiture In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(6) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate unauthorized
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf
    • with the Enforcement Bureau on or before March 1 in EB Docket No. 06-36, for data pertaining to the previous calendar year. See 47 C.F.R. � 64.2009(e). See EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6928. See id. at 6953; 47 C.F.R. � 64.2009(e). EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(6). See id. � 1.16. See 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 5 U.S.C. � 504; 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart K. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 # $ l � 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� � ^��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-276A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-276A1.pdf
    • Station KULF operate with full daytime power between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Based on the evidence before us, we find that JHT Ventures apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times other than those specified in its license. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-277A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-277A1.pdf
    • he manually reduced power at night and forgot to do so on June 15, 2011. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Super W apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to change power/operating mode at night. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-279A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-279A1.pdf
    • the evidence before us, we find that Argos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on November 18, and December 8 and 21, 2011 from two different sites in Puerto Rico. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-281A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-281A1.pdf
    • required FCC Form 854 to update the Antenna Structure's ownership. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hacienda apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in ownership for the Antenna Structure. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-282A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-282A1.pdf
    • Administration's Terminal Doppler Weather Radar installation serving the Kansas City International Airport, the NAL proposed a $17,000 forfeiture against Insight for violation of Section 301 of the Act. Insight submitted documentation of its finances and requested reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Insight's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-338A1.pdf
    • $15,000 forfeiture, asserting that ``it was not [his] intention to act against the law,'' and that he believed his transmitter was able to be used legally without a license. Mr. Lebron also asserted that he cannot afford to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lebron's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-339A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-339A1.pdf
    • and on more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Darius apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-341A1.pdf
    • evidence before us, we find that Mr. Czura apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000; for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-350A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-350A1.pdf
    • find that the violation was also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Hoosier apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain and operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of its station authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-356A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-356A1.pdf
    • Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-368A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-368A1.pdf
    • Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-416A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-416A1.pdf
    • asserted history of providing ``high quality'' service within its service area; and it further states that if we do not do so, the proposed forfeiture amount would only serve to benefit Pacific Spanish's competitors. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Pacific Spanish's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-446A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-446A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Dorviuls. Mr. Dorvilus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Mercius Dorvilus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mercius Dorvilus shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-450A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-450A1.pdf
    • compliance with FCC rules and applicable authorizations. This statement must be provided to the Enforcement Bureau at the address listed in paragraph 16 within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, VPNet, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violations of Sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act and Sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty calendar days of the release date
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-475A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-475A1.pdf
    • the evidence before us, we find that, on February 29, 2012, Mr. Young apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by a Commission agent to inspect the radio installation located inside his residence while the station was in operation. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-481A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-481A1.pdf
    • more than $500'' based on its inability to pay. Vision Latina Broadcasting also submitted a certification that its main studio is now staffed consistent with the rules and that the station's public inspection file is complete and available to the public. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Vision Latina Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-488A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-488A1.pdf
    • the NAL. In its Response, South Bay does not dispute the facts presented in the NAL, but asks that the proposed forfeiture be reduced based on South Bay's inability to pay the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining South Bay's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-522A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-522A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Cheriza. Mr. Cheriza has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robens Cheriza IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Robens Cheriza shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-524A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Thermitus. Mr. Thermitus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robenson Thermitus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Robenson Thermitus shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-527A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-527A1.pdf
    • Philadelphia Office's conclusion that it operated Station WEXC's STL on an unauthorized frequency. In addition, Beacon requests a cancellation or reduction on the ground that payment of a forfeiture would pose a financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Beacon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-533A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-533A1.pdf
    • at least April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Telava apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure after sunset. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-535A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-535A1.pdf
    • be made ``as soon as practicable,'' Telava has failed to comply with that requirement. Accordingly, we find that Telava willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with Section 17.56(a) of the Rules by failing to repair the Antenna Structure's light outage as soon as practicable. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-536A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-536A1.pdf
    • on December 20, 2010. In its Response, Dollar requests that we reduce the proposed forfeiture because the violation was ``an unintentional mistake,'' which Dollar readily admitted, and because Dollar cooperated fully in the investigation. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Dollar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-53A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-53A1.pdf
    • amount for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for ``[e]gregious misconduct,'' or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an ``[i]ntentional violation'' or ``[r]epeated or continuous violation.'' Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-546A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-546A1.pdf
    • an agent observed Station WOIR operate its station with daytime power of 5000 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ERJ Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-54A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-54A1.pdf
    • that the Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Classic Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-55A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-55A1.pdf
    • that the Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that James Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.pdf
    • impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Response Card Marketing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-56A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-56A1.pdf
    • Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mobile Phone of Texas, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-570A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-570A1.pdf
    • repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Alexander Kissi IS DENIED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-57A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-57A1.pdf
    • interference to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Air Traffic Control frequency, the NAL proposed a $12,000 forfeiture against Power for violation of section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules. Power submitted a response to the NAL, requesting a reduction due to ``financial hardship.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Power's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-590A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-590A1.pdf
    • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Princess K Fishing Corporation IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Princess K Fishing Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for violations of section 80.89(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Princess K shall also send electronic notification to WR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-59A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-59A1.pdf
    • WPLY's engineer and sales manager both admitted to the agents that Nassau Broadcasting has never maintained a public inspection file for Station WPLY at its main studio. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Nassau Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating the station in direct contravention of the terms of its station authorization is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-608A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-608A1.pdf
    • responsible for maintaining public file material from the period of time prior to the Station's current ownership, and because the amount of the proposed forfeiture improperly exceeds the forfeiture amounts imposed in similar circumstances.'' III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mapleton's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-60A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-60A1.pdf
    • consciously operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find that Mr. Thermitus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-625A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-625A1.pdf
    • the violation dates are barred by the statute of limitations; that it has a history of compliance; and that it is unable to pay the forfeiture. We discuss below each of these arguments in turn. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ace's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-63A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-63A1.pdf
    • from the Commission for this device or any wireless handheld remote controllers. Based on the evidence before us, we find that US Jetting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 15.201(b) of the Rules by marketing and selling unauthorized radio frequency devices. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-64A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-64A1.pdf
    • not by the Licensee's selection, which undermines the complainant's charges of manipulation. Thus, we are persuaded that no rigging occurred in this instance. Based upon the evidence before us, and in view of the applicable law and Commission precedent, we find that Clear Channel apparently willfully violated section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for each violation of section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-65A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-65A1.pdf
    • the Commission's rules constitutes a continuing violation. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides that any person that willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation by a common carrier, up to a statutory maximum for continuing violations of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E)
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-679A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-679A1.pdf
    • the Atlanta Office informed the FAA of the lighting outages on Towers 2 and 4, and NOTAMs for those structures were issued on February 10, 2012. 47 U.S.C. � 303(q). 47 C.F.R. � 17.51(a). 47 C.F.R. � 17.47. 47 C.F.R. � 17.48. 47 C.F.R. � 17.50. 47 C.F.R. � 17.57. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-684A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-684A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Taylor Broadcasting. Taylor Broadcasting has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Taylor Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Taylor Broadcasting Company shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-685A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-685A1.pdf
    • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to R.J. R.J. has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, R.J.'s Late Night Entertainment Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b)(2), and 73.3527(b)(1) of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. R.J.'s Late Night Entertainment Corporation shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-702A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-702A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to KM Radio. KM Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, KM Radio of Independence, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 11.35, 17.51, 73.1560(b), and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KM Radio of Independence, LLC shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-750A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-750A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Upper Peninsula. Upper Peninsula has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Upper Peninsula Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violations of Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Upper Peninsula Communications, Inc. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-755A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-755A1.pdf
    • owner of antenna structure number 1214169. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify immediately the Commission of a change in ownership information for the Antenna Structure. C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and failing to file required forms or information is 3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-769A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-769A1.pdf
    • Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Casarez. Casarez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rosendo Casarez, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Rosendo Casarez,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-772A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-772A1.pdf
    • and that had it done so, the Licensee would have ceased broadcasting such announcements and its violation would not have been so aggravated. The Licensee also asserts that the forfeiture is excessive in light of its good faith efforts. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-778A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-778A1.pdf
    • cited any Commission precedent suggesting that its actions in this case were excusable, and we find none. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nassau apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Rules by recording the conversation described in the foregoing without first providing the required notice to the complainant. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture for the unauthorized broadcast or recording of a telephone conversation is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-789A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-789A1.pdf
    • Denver Office inspection showed this operation was ongoing for several years. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mount Rushmore apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KZMX-FM in accordance with the terms of the station's authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of the main studio rule is $7,000, the base forfeiture for failing to make a station available for inspection is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-792A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-792A1.pdf
    • misplaced due to changes in management. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Empire apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the Stations' issues/programs lists and make them available in the Stations' public inspection files. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating of the public file rules is $10,000 for each radio station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-800A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-800A1.pdf
    • extended period of time. The agents also observed that there was no perimeter fence surrounding the property. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WOYK apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the Antenna Structure within an effective locked fence. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an AM fencing violation is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-831A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-831A1.pdf
    • inspection on June 22, 2011, one of the previous owners, Cohanzick Broadcasting Corporation, was still listed as the owner on the antenna structure registration. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Quinn apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000 and for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-83A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-83A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Cernogg. Mr. Cernogg has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Willis Cernogg, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Willis Cernogg, Jr. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-846A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-846A1.pdf
    • lists for the current license term. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(12) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-872A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-872A1.pdf
    • the battery in the transmitter's control unit had died, which resulted in the transmitter not shutting down at sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Townsquare apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times not specified in its license. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-874A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-874A1.pdf
    • that Martin Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure from sunset until sunrise and to monitor the Antenna Structure's lights as required. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-875A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-875A1.pdf
    • of these frequencies under its license for Station WQFC968 or under any other license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Aramark apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on unauthorized frequencies. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-876A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-876A1.pdf
    • and/or otherwise was involved in the general conduct or management of the unauthorized station and did so on more than one day. Therefore, we find that Mr. Rivas apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-888A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-888A1.pdf
    • and on more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Knighten apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-889A1.pdf
    • reports that it is now in compliance with Section 73.1350(a), stating that the ``automation equipment used to transition WIPC from daytime to nighttime operations has been repaired and is functioning properly at the present time.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Super W's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-901A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-901A1.pdf
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to Mr. Young. Mr. Young has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Arthur Lee Young IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Arthur Lee Young shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-927A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-927A1.pdf
    • after 6 p.m. EST, which is the local sunset time during the month of October. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within the terms of the Station's authorization. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limit is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-931A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-931A1.pdf
    • material factual information was intentional in violation of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by providing material factual information that was incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and not misleading. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for broadcasters such as Vision Latina, the base forfeiture is $37,500 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-933A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-933A1.pdf
    • file for Station KBPO during regular business hours and found the file did not contain any issues-programs listings. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-939A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-939A1.pdf
    • All of these facts indicate that Mr. Jean consciously operated and/or otherwise was involved in the general conduct or management of the unlicensed station. Therefore, we find that Mr. Jean apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-940A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-940A1.pdf
    • investigations without further expenditure of public resources. Nothing on the record in this case, including A Radio's ability to pay claim, warrants any leniency or mitigation of the proposed forfeiture amount. We have examined the NAL Response pursuant to the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Considering the entire record and the statutory factors listed above, we find that A Radio is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, A
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274734A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274734A1.pdf
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2784 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2784 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h5 h5 O P O P h5 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282344A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282344A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ! -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282409A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282409A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282411A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282411A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 o -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282412A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282412A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282414A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282414A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282416A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282416A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1005 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1005 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282533A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282533A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282557A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282557A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282651A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282651A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283144A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283144A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 5 � 6 7 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283858A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283858A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ` -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283859A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283859A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283861A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283861A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 J K -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283881A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283881A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283889A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283893A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283893A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1160 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283903A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283903A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283907A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283907A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 B E I S } � ~  -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283908A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283908A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 n -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283909A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283909A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283910A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283910A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283911A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283911A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283940A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283940A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 p -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283941A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283941A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1226 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1226 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283942A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283942A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283949A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283949A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1253 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1253 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 V -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283950A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283950A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283952A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283952A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1292 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283953A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283953A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1293 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283954A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283954A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1295 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1295 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 v -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283955A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283955A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1296 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283956A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283956A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ` -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283957A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283957A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283958A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283958A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283959A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283959A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 l -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283966A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283966A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 | -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283967A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283967A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 w -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283970A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283970A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � tm -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283971A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283971A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283972A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283972A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283974A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283974A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283977A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283977A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283985A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283985A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284590A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284590A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284594A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284594A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - A B ] ^ d e � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284597A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284597A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284831A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284831A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284944A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284944A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1160 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284985A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284985A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284986A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284986A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284987A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284987A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284989A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284989A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 r -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285020A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285020A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285022A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285022A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285023A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285023A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285024A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285024A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285025A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285032A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285032A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285036A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285036A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285037A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285037A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285038A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285038A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285042A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285042A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285046A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285046A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285047A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285047A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285048A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285048A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285050A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285050A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 E ' -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285051A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285051A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285052A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285052A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285053A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285053A1.pdf
    • Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. above. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285057A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285057A1.pdf
    • Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. above. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285058A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285058A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285059A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285059A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � & -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285060A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285060A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285061A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285061A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285062A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285062A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285063A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285063A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285064A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285064A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285069A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285069A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285070A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285070A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285072A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285072A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285073A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285073A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285074A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285074A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285075A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285075A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285076A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285076A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285275A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285275A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � 1� � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285279A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285279A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 9 ; ? I s � � � � t u � )u � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285280A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285280A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) D E � � � * + � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285281A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285281A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285289A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285289A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285290A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285290A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285295A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285295A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285296A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285296A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285297A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285297A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) � * + -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285301A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285302A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285307A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285307A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 q -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288391A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288391A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288414A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288414A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288421A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288422A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288423A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288425A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288426A1.pdf
    • practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We refer in this citation to the Commission's rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288427A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288427A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288428A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288428A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288433A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288433A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288434A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288434A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288435A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288435A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288436A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288436A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288439A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288439A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288443A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288443A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288452A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288452A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288454A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288454A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 (R) � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288478A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288478A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288507A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288507A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 | -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289125A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289125A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289127A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289127A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289128A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289128A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 L -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289129A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289132A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289238A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289238A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289239A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289239A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289240A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289240A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289241A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289241A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ` -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289242A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289242A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289243A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289243A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289244A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289244A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 E � F G -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289246A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289246A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289247A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289247A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289383A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289384A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289384A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289385A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289386A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289386A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289387A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289387A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289388A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289388A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289390A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289390A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289391A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289391A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289392A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289392A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 y -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289394A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289394A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 y -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289395A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289395A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289438A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289438A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289441A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289441A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289487A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 t -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289488A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289488A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289489A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289489A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289490A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289490A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289491A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289491A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 r u y � � (R) � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289492A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289492A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289493A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289493A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289494A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289494A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289495A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289495A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289497A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 W -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289498A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289498A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � : -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289499A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289499A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289500A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289500A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289501A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289501A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289604A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289604A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289607A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289607A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289608A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289608A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290124A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290124A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290127A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290127A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290132A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 $ � % & -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290133A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 _ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290149A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290149A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290150A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290150A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 u � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290151A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290151A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290170A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 X [ _ i `` � '' � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290178A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 q -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290185A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290185A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & � ' ( -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290328A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290331A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 } -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290406A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290406A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290544A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290544A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ^ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290548A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290548A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291550A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291550A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291552A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291552A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 | -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291553A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291553A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291554A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291554A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291555A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291555A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291558A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291558A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291573A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291573A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291574A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291574A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291575A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291575A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 + , : [ - - � (R) � y -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291577A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291577A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291578A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291578A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 f -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291579A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291579A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291583A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 7 r s � � � �@��� �@��� q -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291584A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291585A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291585A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291587A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291587A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291588A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291588A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291590A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291590A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � ' � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291594A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291594A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 N Q U _ � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291595A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291595A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291596A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291596A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 w -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291597A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291597A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 t -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291606A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291606A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291607A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291607A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291660A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291660A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291661A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291661A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291665A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291665A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ? � @ A -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291666A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291666A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291667A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291667A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291668A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291668A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291669A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291669A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 o p $ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291799A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291799A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291800A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291800A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291801A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291801A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291802A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291802A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292025A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292026A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292027A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292027A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292028A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292029A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292029A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292112A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292112A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292113A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292113A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292114A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292114A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292115A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292115A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292116A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292116A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292119A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292119A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292127A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292127A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292128A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292128A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292235A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292235A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292236A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292236A1.pdf
    • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292307A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292307A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292308A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292309A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292309A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292310A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292310A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292326A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292326A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292329A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292329A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292330A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292330A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 / 2 6 @ j � k l -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292331A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292332A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292332A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292334A1.pdf
    • refer in this citation to the Commission's rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292335A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292336A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292336A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292338A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292339A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292339A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292340A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292340A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292341A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292342A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292342A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! � " # -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292343A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292343A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292345A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292345A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292346A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292346A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ! " � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292360A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292360A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292361A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292361A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292362A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292362A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ! " � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292602A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292602A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292607A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292607A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292608A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292608A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292613A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292614A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292614A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292615A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292615A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292616A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292616A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 m -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292617A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292617A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - - -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292637A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292637A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292638A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292638A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292639A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292639A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292646A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292646A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292647A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292647A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292839A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292839A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292892A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292892A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292902A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292902A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292903A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292903A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292904A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292904A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292987A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292987A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292988A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292988A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292989A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292989A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292990A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292990A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292991A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292991A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292992A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292992A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292993A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292993A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292994A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292994A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292995A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292995A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292996A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292996A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292997A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292997A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292998A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292998A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292999A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292999A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293000A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293000A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293001A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293001A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293002A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293002A1.pdf
    • company. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293010A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293010A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293011A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293011A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293012A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293012A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293013A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293013A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293014A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293014A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293015A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293015A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293016A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293016A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293017A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293017A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293018A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293018A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293019A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293019A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293021A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293021A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293023A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293023A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293025A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293026A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293027A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293027A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293028A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293028A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293029A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293029A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293030A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293030A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293031A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293031A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293033A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293033A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293035A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293035A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294255A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294255A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294256A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294256A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294258A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294260A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294260A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294261A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294261A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 I L � h i -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294262A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294262A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294263A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294263A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294264A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294264A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294382A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294382A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294383A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294383A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294384A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294384A1.pdf
    • including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached 1 complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 888-567-8688, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294385A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294399A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294399A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294400A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294400A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294401A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294401A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294402A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294402A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294403A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294403A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294404A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294404A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294405A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294405A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294406A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294406A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294407A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294407A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294408A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294408A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294409A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294409A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294410A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294410A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294411A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294411A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294412A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294412A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294413A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294413A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294414A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294414A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294415A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294415A1.pdf
    • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 312-380-5416, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294416A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294416A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294418A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294419A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294421A1.pdf
    • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294422A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294422A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294423A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294423A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294424A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294424A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294425A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294425A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294426A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294426A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294427A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294427A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294428A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294428A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294429A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294429A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294430A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294430A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302692A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302692A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302748A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302748A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302749A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302749A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302751A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302751A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ~ � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302752A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302752A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302753A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302753A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302754A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302754A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302755A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302755A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302756A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302756A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302757A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302757A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302758A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302758A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302760A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302760A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302761A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302761A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302821A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302821A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302823A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302823A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302825A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302825A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302826A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302826A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302836A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302836A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302838A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302838A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302839A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302839A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302840A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302840A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302841A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302841A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302842A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302842A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302844A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302844A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302845A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302845A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302846A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302846A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302847A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302847A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302848A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302848A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302857A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302857A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302880A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302880A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302884A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302884A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302885A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302885A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302889A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 7 : � V W W -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302891A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302891A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302892A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302892A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302894A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302894A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302895A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302895A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302896A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302896A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302897A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302897A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302898A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302898A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302899A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302899A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302900A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302900A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302901A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302901A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302902A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302902A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302904A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302904A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302905A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302905A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302906A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302906A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302911A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302911A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 G J � f g -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303115A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303115A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303121A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303121A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303127A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303127A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303129A1.pdf
    • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � " � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303132A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303133A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303134A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA XX-XXX Federal Communications Commission DA XX-xxxx FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303135A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " ... # $ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303159A1.pdf
    • restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 585-770-1499, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303160A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303160A1.pdf
    • restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 623-878-4178, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303161A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303161A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303162A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303162A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303163A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303163A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � - - -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303164A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303164A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303169A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303169A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303170A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " ... # $ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303172A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303172A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303173A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303173A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303174A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303175A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303176A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303176A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303177A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303178A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303179A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303179A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303180A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303180A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303181A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303181A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303182A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303182A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303183A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303183A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303184A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303184A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303185A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303185A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303186A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303186A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303187A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303229A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303229A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303230A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303230A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303231A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303231A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303232A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303232A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303233A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303233A1.pdf
    • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303234A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303234A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303235A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303235A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303236A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303236A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303237A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303237A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303238A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303238A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303239A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303239A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303240A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303240A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303241A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303241A1.pdf
    • U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303243A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303243A1.pdf
    • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303244A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303244A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303245A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303245A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303246A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303246A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303247A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303247A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303248A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303248A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303249A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303249A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 o r � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303250A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303251A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303251A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 o r � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303252A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303252A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303253A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303253A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303254A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303254A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303255A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303255A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303256A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303256A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303258A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303258A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303262A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303262A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303285A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303285A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303286A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303286A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303287A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303287A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303288A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303288A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303289A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303289A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303290A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303290A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303291A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303291A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303292A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303292A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303293A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � 2 3 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303295A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303295A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303296A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303296A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 f ��PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303297A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303297A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303298A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303298A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303299A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303300A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303301A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303302A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303307A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303307A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 D G K U  � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303308A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303308A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303309A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303309A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303310A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303310A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303311A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303311A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303313A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303313A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303314A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303314A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303316A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303316A1.pdf
    • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303318A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303318A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303320A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303320A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303322A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303322A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303323A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303323A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303327A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303327A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303328A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303328A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303330A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303330A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303331A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303331A1.pdf
    • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached 1 complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 800-205-5789, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303335A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303335A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303337A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303337A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 < � = > � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303339A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303339A1.pdf
    • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303340A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303340A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 F I M W � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303343A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303343A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303349A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303349A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303351A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303351A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303352A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303352A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303354A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303354A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303356A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303356A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303357A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303380A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303380A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303396A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303396A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303473A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303473A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303474A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303474A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303475A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303475A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303476A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303476A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303477A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303477A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303478A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303478A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303479A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303479A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303480A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303480A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303481A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303481A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303482A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303482A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303483A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303483A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303484A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303484A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303485A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303485A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303486A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303486A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303487A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303488A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303488A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303491A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303491A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303492A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303492A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303493A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303493A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303494A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303494A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 @ A ? A G Y Z [ ~  � � � � � � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303495A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303495A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 3 2 3 3 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303496A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303496A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 p -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303497A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303498A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303498A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303499A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303499A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303500A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303500A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303501A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303501A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303502A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303502A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303503A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303503A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303504A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303504A1.pdf
    • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303505A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303506A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303506A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303507A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303507A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 y � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303508A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303508A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303510A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303510A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # ' 1 [ � \ ] � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303517A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303517A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 W -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303518A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303518A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 m � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303519A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303519A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 6 tm 7 8 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303520A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303520A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303521A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303521A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 E � F G -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303522A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303522A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 v � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303523A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303523A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " ... # $ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303524A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! � " # -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303525A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303525A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303527A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303527A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303528A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303528A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303529A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303529A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303530A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303530A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303531A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303531A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303532A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303532A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303533A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303533A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303534A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303534A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303535A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303535A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303536A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303536A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303537A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303537A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303538A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303538A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303539A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303539A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303540A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303540A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303541A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303541A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303542A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303542A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303543A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303543A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303544A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303544A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303545A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303545A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303546A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303546A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303547A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303547A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303548A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303548A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303549A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303549A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303550A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303550A1.pdf
    • company. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303551A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303551A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ~ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303552A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303552A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305699A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305699A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1774 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1774 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305700A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305700A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1700 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1700 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305787A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305787A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " � > ? � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305796A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305796A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305798A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305798A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305800A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305800A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305801A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305801A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305802A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305802A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305819A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305819A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305825A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305825A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305826A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305826A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305831A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305831A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305832A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305832A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305833A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305833A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305834A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305834A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305836A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305836A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305838A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305838A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305841A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305841A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305843A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305843A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305858A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305858A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305866A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305866A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305868A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305868A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305871A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305871A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305876A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305876A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305877A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305877A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305886A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305886A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305889A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305889A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305892A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305892A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305900A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305900A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305901A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305901A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305902A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305902A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305904A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305904A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305909A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305909A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305912A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305912A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305923A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305923A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305989A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305989A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305992A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305992A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306002A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306002A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306149A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306149A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306248A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306248A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306312A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306338A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306338A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306342A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306342A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 e -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306351A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306351A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306353A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306353A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306354A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306354A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 n -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306355A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306355A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 + � , - -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306356A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306356A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306357A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 b e i s � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306358A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306358A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306359A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306359A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306448A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306448A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 @ � A B -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306450A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306450A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306452A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306452A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306454A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306454A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306456A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306456A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306458A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306458A1.pdf
    • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306460A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306460A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 * � + , -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306462A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306462A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306464A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306464A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306466A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306466A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306467A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306467A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 r � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306469A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306469A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306471A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306471A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306473A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306473A1.pdf
    • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306475A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306475A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306476A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306476A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306478A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306478A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306480A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306480A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306482A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306482A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306484A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306484A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 W � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306485A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306485A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306486A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306486A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306487A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306487A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306488A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306488A1.pdf
    • 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 { � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306489A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306489A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 + � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306490A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306490A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306491A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306491A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306492A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306492A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! K (R) L M � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306493A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306493A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306494A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306494A1.pdf
    • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306496A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306496A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306497A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306501A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306501A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 Q T X b � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306502A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306502A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306504A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306504A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � B -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306505A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306505A1.pdf
    • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306506A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306506A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) � * + -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306507A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306507A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 B � C D -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306508A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306508A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306509A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306509A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306510A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306510A1.pdf
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306511A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306511A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306512A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306512A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306513A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306513A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306514A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306514A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306515A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306515A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306516A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306516A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306604A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306604A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306605A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306605A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306606A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306606A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306608A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306608A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306609A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306609A1.pdf
    • system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306610A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306610A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306612A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306612A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306613A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306614A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306614A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306615A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306615A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306616A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306616A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306617A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306617A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306618A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306618A1.pdf
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306619A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306619A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306620A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306620A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306621A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306621A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306622A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306622A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306623A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306623A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306624A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306624A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306625A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306625A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306626A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306626A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306627A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306627A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306628A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306628A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306629A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306629A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306630A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306630A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306632A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306632A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306633A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306633A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306634A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306634A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306635A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306635A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306636A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306636A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306677A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306677A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306678A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306678A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306680A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306680A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306681A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306681A1.pdf
    • individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(4). Although one complainant lists ``contacts.com'' as the company involved, Commission staff was redirected to your company's website upon entering the internet address ``contacts.com.'' See Complaint filed by R. Eaves, November 29, 2004. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306684A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306684A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306685A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306685A1.pdf
    • rules restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 800-407-6448, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306686A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306686A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306687A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306687A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306689A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306689A1.pdf
    • company. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306690A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306690A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306691A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306691A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306692A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306692A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306693A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306693A1.pdf
    • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306694A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306694A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306696A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306696A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306714A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306714A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306715A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306715A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306716A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306716A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306717A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306717A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306718A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306718A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306719A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306719A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306720A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306720A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306721A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306721A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306722A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306722A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306723A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306723A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306724A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306724A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306725A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306725A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306726A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306726A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307009A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307009A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307011A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307011A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307013A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307013A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307014A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307014A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307017A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307017A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307018A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307018A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307019A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307019A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307020A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307020A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307021A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307021A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307022A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307022A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307023A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307023A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307025A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307026A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307026A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307027A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307027A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307031A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307031A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307033A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307033A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307034A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307034A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307035A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307035A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307037A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307037A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307039A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307039A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307042A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307042A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307044A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307044A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307174A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307174A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307176A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307176A1.pdf
    • company. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307177A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307177A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307178A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307181A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307181A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307182A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307182A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307183A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307183A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307184A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307184A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307185A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307185A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307186A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307186A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307187A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307188A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307190A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307190A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307330A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307330A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307334A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307336A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307336A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307345A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307345A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307346A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307346A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307348A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307348A1.pdf
    • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307349A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307349A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307522A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307522A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307541A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307541A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307542A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307542A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307544A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307544A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307545A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307545A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307546A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307546A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307550A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307550A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307552A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307552A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307557A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307557A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307558A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307558A1.pdf
    • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307559A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307559A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307573A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307573A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307574A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307574A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307575A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307575A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307576A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307576A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307577A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307577A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307578A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307578A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307580A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307580A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307581A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307581A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307582A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307582A1.pdf
    • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 9 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307583A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307584A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307584A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307585A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307585A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307586A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307586A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307587A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307587A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307588A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307588A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307589A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307589A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307590A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307590A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307591A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307591A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307592A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307592A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307593A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307593A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307599A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307599A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307600A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307600A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307601A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307601A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307602A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307602A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307604A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307604A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307606A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307606A1.pdf
    • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 858-564-2564, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307608A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307608A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307610A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307610A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307611A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307611A1.pdf
    • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 904-268-7001, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307622A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307622A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307623A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307623A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1771 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1771 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307624A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307624A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307625A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307625A1.pdf
    • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307626A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307626A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307627A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307627A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307628A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307628A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307629A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307629A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307630A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307630A1.pdf
    • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307631A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307631A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307632A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307632A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307633A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307633A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307634A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307634A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307635A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307635A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307636A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307636A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307803A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307803A1.pdf
    • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307805A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307805A1.pdf
    • 3795 (``[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.''). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307807A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307807A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307808A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307808A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307811A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307811A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307814A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307814A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307815A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307815A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307816A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307816A1.pdf
    • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307817A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307817A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307818A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307818A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307819A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307819A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307839A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307839A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307840A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307840A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307841A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307841A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307842A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307842A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307843A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307843A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307844A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307844A1.pdf
    • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307850A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307850A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307851A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307851A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307852A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307852A1.pdf
    • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307853A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307853A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307854A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307854A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307855A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307855A1.pdf
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of ``telephone solicitation''). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2394 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2394 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307856A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307856A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307859A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307859A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307860A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307860A1.pdf
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307861A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307861A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312971A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312971A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312972A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312972A1.pdf
    • dialing system'' means ``equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312973A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312973A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312974A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312974A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314802A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314802A1.pdf
    • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On June 14, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 12-62, in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects a typographical error in paragraph 34 to make it consistent with paragraphs 1, 12, and 32, and read as follows: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,120 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,121 Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. __________________________ 120 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). 121 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Pamela S. Kane Deputy
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.txt
    • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.pdf
    • included 28 models of its devices as non-compliant and that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL is excessive. Behringer also claims that it has implemented affirmative measures to ensure compliance with the FCC equipment authorization and related requirements. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture set forth in the NAL was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the guidelines enunciated in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeiture liability, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs the Commission to take into account the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior offenses and ability to pay; the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and such other matters as justice may require. We
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-105A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-105A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for the violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes an
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-106A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-106A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes an important
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-125A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-125A1.pdf
    • of control; $4,000 for a failure to file required forms or information; and the statutory maximum for each service for misrepresentation and a lack of candor. Further, the Commission allows a maximum forfeiture of $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed shall not exceed $1,325,000 for any single continuous violation. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Unremedied,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-131A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 218 unsolicited advertisements to the 132 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Extreme Leads, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,377,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Extreme Leads, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,377,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-133A1.pdf
    • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 209 unsolicited advertisements to the 45 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,133,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-134A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 29 unsolicited advertisements to the 18 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $130,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $130,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-135A1.pdf
    • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventeen unsolicited advertisements to the thirteen consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that MHJP, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that MHJP, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-146A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-146A1.pdf
    • Commission's related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that QuoteMaster is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $43,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that QuoteMaster is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $43,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-147A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-147A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 356 unsolicited advertisements to the 110 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,168,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,168,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-148A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-148A1.pdf
    • forfeiture methodologies described herein are not adequate to deter violations of our USF rules, our statutory authority permits the imposition of much larger penalties and we will not hesitate to impose them as circumstances require. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that VCI is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,047,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, VCI
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-152A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-152A1.pdf
    • believe a $36,000 forfeiture is appropriate for Sinclair's violations. This represents the base amount for the single broadcast of the ABF program over each of the nine above-captioned Sinclair stations on September 11 or 12, 2004. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Sonshine is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-153A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-153A1.pdf
    • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $71,500 (seventy-one thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3),
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-154A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-154A1.pdf
    • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 28 unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Construction Expo, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $126,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Construction Expo, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $126,000 (one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-155A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-155A1.pdf
    • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seven unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Trinity Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $31,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Trinity Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $31,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-156A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-156A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-157A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-157A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-158A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-158A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.pdf
    • (2006). See id. See also International Telecom Exchange, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6232 (2006) and Universal Telecommunications, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6579 (2006). See 47 U.S.C. �258(a). See 47 C.F.R. �64.1120. 47 C.F.R. �1.95. Id. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-54, released December 9, 2003. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-58, released December 24, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80 (b)(2). The Kintzel brothers have engaged in a pattern of misconduct that spans more than five years and now multiple enforcement proceedings. Their conduct represents a systemic abrogation of their obligations as a common carrier and demonstrates a blatant disregard for Commission Rules. We therefore believe it is appropriate to consider assessing the statutory maximum for each of these recent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-191A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-191A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV V-Chip technology requirements promote
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-1A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-1A1.pdf
    • thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) against 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. d/b/a LocateCell.com (``LocateCell''). LocateCell violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. LocateCell acted in apparent and willful and repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On July 13, 2006, the Commission issued to LocateCell a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of ninety-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) based on LocateCell's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave LocateCell the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-209A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-209A1.pdf
    • Moreover, Austin Hughes sold units of five of the devices. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Austin Hughes apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules by marketing nine unauthorized Class A digital devices without proper verification. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Austin Hughes' violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules were willful and repeated. Section 1.80(b)(4)
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-230A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-230A1.pdf
    • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-two unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $335,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $335,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-3A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-3A1.pdf
    • dispute the violations, but seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed $75,000 forfeiture. San Jose claims that its violations were not intentional, that its corrective measures demonstrate good faith, and that its payment of the forfeiture would cause economic hardship. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, the Commission is required to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s); the violator's degree of culpability, history or prior offenses and ability to pay; and such other matters as justice may require. We have considered San Jose's claims in light of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-45A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-45A1.pdf
    • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Hawking's conduct has continued over a period that began in July 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Hawking's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.pdf
    • own risk. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Ramko apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by selling or offering for sale 17 models of radio transceivers which, by their nature, are ineligible for equipment certification. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Ramko's violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules were willful and repeated. Section 1.80(b)(4) of
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-58A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-58A1.pdf
    • concedes that the Commission may deviate from the guidelines in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 503(b)(2)(D). In any event, the Commission's established methodologies for determining the amount of the forfeiture for the particular violations at issue here do take into account the base forfeiture amounts, as well as the upward and downward adjustment criteria, specified in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission followed this methodology exactly in the InPhonic NAL. Next, with respect to section 503(b)(2)(D), InPhonic is wrong that we did not comply with the Act because the forfeiture was not sufficiently tied to InPhonic in particular. For example, with respect to the registration violation, InPhonic states that instead of ``a particularized Section 503(b)(2)(D) analysis,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-59A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-59A1.pdf
    • Worksheet within the year preceding issuance of the NAL; and (3) a total penalty of $86,774 for failing to make three monthly universal service contributions within the year preceding issuance of the NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Global Teldata II, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 29. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-67A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-67A1.pdf
    • or demonstrate financial hardship sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. We are, however, canceling the proposed forfeiture with respect two calls that were made one day before effectuation of the call recipient's national do-not-call registration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $748,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. We find that Dynasty's Arizona and California companies are jointly and severally liable
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-73A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-73A1.pdf
    • CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), and section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.3, Carrera's Petition for Waiver is GRANTED. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Carrera IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,900 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and Commission's rules. 22. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-75A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-75A1.pdf
    • was persuaded by the licensee's elaboration of previously provided information that further relief was warranted. There has been no comparable showing here. 11. We have examined CB's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules. We reverse the Bureau's decision to the extent that it improperly relied on post-investigational efforts to correct a violation as a basis to mitigate the forfeiture amount, but otherwise affirm the Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and Order finding CB Radio, Inc. liable for a forfeiture
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-80A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-80A1.pdf
    • Enforcement Bureau shall ``(a) [s]erve as the primary Commission entity responsible for enforcement of the Communications Act and other communications statutes, the Commission's rules, Commission orders and Commission authorizations, other than matters that are addressed in the context of a pending application for a license or other authorization . . .''). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b). Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, � 27. See Star Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 18630-33; Star NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 17657-58; Northeast Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-93A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-93A1.pdf
    • FCC Rcd at 4030-31, �� 7-8. In its Reconsideration Petition, Infinity had argued that the distinction between use of the NAL per se and use of the NAL's underlying facts was meaningless because they both have ``the same punitive effect.'' See Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030, �� 6-7. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17102-04, �� 32-36 (1997); on recon., 15 FCC Rcd 303, 303-05, �� 3-5 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Reconsideration Order''). Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030-31, � 8 (citing 106 Cong. Rec. 17623 (Aug. 25, 1960); S. Rep. No. 1857, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. at
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-94A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-94A1.pdf
    • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit � � � � � Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB-06-IH-2271 Adopted: May 17, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007 By the Commission: On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-96A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-96A1.pdf
    • finds none that support FMG's position. Accordingly, we affirm the Bureau's rejection of FMG's claim of inability to pay, which we find unsupported by the record. 16. Conclusion. We have examined FMG's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Bureau's earlier decision and, therefore, we deny FMG's application for review and affirm the Bureau MO&O finding FMG liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-102A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-102A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-103A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-103A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-104A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-104A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-105A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-105A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-106A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-106A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-107A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-107A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-108A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-108A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-109A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-109A1.pdf
    • made and actions it took after it received the LOI, its history of compliance with the Commission's rules, the lack of harm to the public, and the lack of any allegation of misrepresentation on the part of Syntax-Brillian. forfeiture order The proposed forfeiture set forth in the NAL was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the guidelines enunciated in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-110A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-110A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. We recently issued Notices of Apparent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-111A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. We recently issued Notices of Apparent
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-112A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-112A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-116A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-116A1.pdf
    • has failed to pay all of its TRS contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by Telrite, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Telrite Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $924,212 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-123A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-124A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-124A1.pdf
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-129A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the seven consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $46,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $46,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-130A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-130A1.pdf
    • the forfeiture based on LPSI's response to the NAL. Based on LPSI's most recent Worksheets, and USAC's assessment of the reported revenue in LPSI's Worksheets, however, we conclude that the forfeiture imposed on LPSI should be reduced to $436,765. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Local Phone Services, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $436,765 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this ORDER OF FORFEITURE shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to L.E. Hisken, President,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-132A1.pdf
    • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 34 unsolicited advertisements to the 31 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $169,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc.] is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $169,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-133A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 130 unsolicited advertisements to the 59 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $695,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $695,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-143A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-three unsolicited advertisements to the forty-one consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SOS Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $244,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SOS Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $244,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-145A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-145A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $84,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $84,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-146A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-146A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,377,000 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Extreme Leads, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,377,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above. with any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-150A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-150A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eleven unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $49,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $49,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-154A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-154A1.pdf
    • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB File No. EB-06-SE-132 Adopted: June 13, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Commission: This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b), to increase the maximum forfeiture penalties established in that section to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-157A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-157A1.pdf
    • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $27,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $27,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-161A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-161A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least forty-one unsolicited advertisements to the thirty-one consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $239,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Mexico Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $239,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-162A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-162A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the ten consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tropical Travel Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $49,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tropical Travel Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $49,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-169A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-169A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 146 unsolicited advertisements to the 70 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $739,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $739,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-170A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-nine unsolicited advertisements to the thirty consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SMC, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $348,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SMC, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $348,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-187A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-187A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-190A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-190A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least ninety unsolicited advertisements to the seventy-eight consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $443,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $443,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-198A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-198A1.pdf
    • or other device to send at least twenty-nine unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $136,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $136,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-199A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-199A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fourteen unsolicited advertisements to the twelve consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $63,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $63,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-211A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-211A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $40,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $40,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-234A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-234A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 21 unsolicited advertisements to the 17 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tropical Travel Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $94,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tropical Travel Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $94,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-235A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-235A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least twenty-five unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $112,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $112,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-250A1.pdf
    • Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed June 9, 2008, by Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc. IS DENIED, that the Enforcement Bureau's May 9, 2008, decision IS AFFIRMED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc., licensee of then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) within 20 days from the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.pdf
    • there is no evidence to support a finding that they were in retaliation for Mr. Thompson's indecency complaints). See Application for Review at 2 (``I demand a full hearing on this matter before the Commission. . . . to tell the Commission directly about threats . . . [and to hear Commission personnel] respond to my testimony.''). Pursuant to Section 1.80(e) of the Commission's Rules, the Commission may institute forfeiture proceedings either via a written notice of apparent liability or via a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e) and (g). Typically, however, hearings occur ``only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture.'' Id. at �
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-252A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-252A1.pdf
    • amount of time there and using it as a home base. Since he was not present at the main studio, we need not address whether the unpaid volunteer was managerial personnel. We affirm, therefore, the Bureau's determination that Evangelism willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules. History of Overall Compliance Argument Background The Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules permit downward adjustment of forfeitures on the basis of a minor violation, good faith or voluntary disclosure, history of overall compliance or inability pay as well as other factors within the discretion of the Commission and its staff. Discussion Evangelism again claims that it has a history of overall compliance. The Bureau rejected this claim in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-25A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-25A1.pdf
    • ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-03-IH-0122 and EB-03-IH-0353 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 25, 2008 Released: January 25, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioner Tate issuing a separate statement. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the ABC Television Network (``ABC'') affiliated stations and ABC owned-and-operated stations listed in the Attachment to this NAL aired material that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Specifically, during the February 25, 2003 episode of the ABC program ``NYPD Blue,'' aired at 9:00 p.m. Central Standard Time and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-261A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-261A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eight unsolicited advertisements to the seven consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $47,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-266A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-266A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 13 unsolicited advertisements to the 12 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Five Star Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $64,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Five Star Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $64,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-268A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-268A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $51,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $51,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-269A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-269A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 219 unsolicited advertisements to the 188 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,040,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,040,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-272A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-272A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $114,500 for MHJP's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $114,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-273A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-273A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $153,000 for NBIC's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9.. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that The National Business Information Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $153,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-274A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-274A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least twenty-eight unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $126,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $126,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-279A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-279A1.pdf
    • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two hundred eighty-one unsolicited advertisements to the one hundred eighty-six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,545,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,545,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-280A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-280A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $27,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $27,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-32A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-32A1.pdf
    • that the programming on its station, and that of the other stations owned by Mr. Bernal, is primarily religious in nature, and that listeners' monetary donations ``help defray the costs of station operation and expand the reach of the Bernal ministry.'' discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SM Radio's Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we ``take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-33A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-33A1.pdf
    • stated in its Forfeiture Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Application for Review filed by Twenty-One Sound Communications, Inc. IS DENIED and the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.pdf
    • February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program ``NYPD Blue'' ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-03-IH-0122 and EB-03-IH-0353 FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that ABC Television Network (``ABC'') affiliated stations and ABC owned-and-operated stations listed in Attachment A, infra, broadcast indecent material during an episode of the program NYPD Blue on February 25, 2003, in willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the facts and
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-63A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-63A1.pdf
    • Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox Television Network Program ``Married By America'' on April 7, 2003 ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-IH-0162 FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2008 Released: February 22, 2008 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the FOX Television Network stations listed in Attachment A, infra, broadcast indecent material during an episode of the program ``Married By America'' on April 7, 2003, in willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances in this case,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.pdf
    • rules, the Commission and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture, as permitted by statute. Horizon will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed. Proposed Forfeiture for Horizon's Failures to Respond Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Horizon's failure to timely respond to the twenty-one (21) informal complaints served by CGB warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each apparent violation, for a proposed forfeiture of eighty-four thousand dollar ($84,000).
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-71A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-71A1.pdf
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eighty-six unsolicited advertisements to the fifty-four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SMC, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $458,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SMC, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $458,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-79A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-79A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $2,591,500 for Hot Lead's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9.. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4), that The Hot Lead LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $2,591,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. with
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-80A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-80A1.pdf
    • request which was previously denied. Cumulus argues that as an owner of more than 260 stations, its ``numerous'' violations relative to its size, are very small, and that ``it is unfair to portray Cumulus as an entity that does not respect Commission rules.'' The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Cumulus' Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-90A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-90A1.pdf
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 14 unsolicited advertisements to the 14 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $63,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $63,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-96A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-96A1.pdf
    • Consequently, we find the Global Crossing Companies are liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $619,291 for their willful and repeated failure to satisfy its TRS obligations for the 2006 and 2007 funding periods. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,025,921.88 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 254(d) and 225 of the Act and sections 54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.pdf
    • to timely make required regulatory fee payments for one calendar year. Therefore, we find Compass apparently liable for a $20,000 forfeiture for its apparent violation of sections 1.1154 and 1.1157 of the Commission's rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $828,613.44 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-108A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-108A1.pdf
    • the violations described in the NAL. More specifically, we find that Sonshine willfully and repeatedly violated Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to air required sponsorship identification announcements. We now turn to the proposed forfeiture amount, which in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-114A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-114A1.pdf
    • their cross-border 23 GHz operations be licensed, whether the Petitioners clearly understood it or not, and regardless of any oral statements made to their counsel or other representatives. We have examined the applications for review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Region's earlier decisions. Therefore, we deny the applications for review of Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More Enterprises Communications Network, Inc., Uniradio Corporation and Anderson Desk Company, and affirm the Region's Forfeiture Orders finding Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-1A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-1A1.pdf
    • proposed forfeiture of $30,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to make NANP contributions, and a total proposed forfeiture of $100,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to obtain an international section 214 authorization prior to commencing international service. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that ADMA Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $672,541 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-25A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-25A1.pdf
    • the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $50,000 to Hawking. Although Hawking received a copy of the NAL, it has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Hawking Technologies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $50,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a) and 15.204(d) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-26A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-26A1.pdf
    • forfeiture amount of $10,000 for failure to make required regulatory fee payments. Therefore, we find Omniat is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $40,000 for its willful and repeated failure to make regulatory fee payments from 2005 to 2008. Finally, we find that Omniat has repeatedly and willfully failed to provide a timely and complete response to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Omniat's total failure to respond to the LOI warrants a substantial increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits a
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-27A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-27A1.pdf
    • that the Region erred and we affirm the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, the Application for Review filed by CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS hereby DENIED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-34A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-34A1.pdf
    • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-132A1.pdf
    • the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least 15 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Media Synergy Group, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $67,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Media Synergy Group, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $67,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), sections 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-152A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-152A1.pdf
    • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $77,500 for Troescher's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Troescher Typing Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $77,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-156A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-156A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 33 unsolicited advertisements to the 15 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $528,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $528,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-160A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-160A1.pdf
    • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventy-three unsolicited advertisements to the sixty-nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $345,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-162A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-162A1.pdf
    • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,533,000 for Hot Lead's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Hot Lead LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,533,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-163A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-163A1.pdf
    • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $125,500 for RMG's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that RMG Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $125,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-164A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-164A1.pdf
    • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $806,500 for SMC's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that SMC, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $806,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-165A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-165A1.pdf
    • or cancelled, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $139,500 for Clean Credit's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Clean Credit, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $139,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-166A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-166A1.pdf
    • $50,000 forfeiture, and we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $50,000 for Sunstar's willful and repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(f)(4), that Sunstar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $50,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-167A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-167A1.pdf
    • impose a total forfeiture of $144,000 for Tropical Travel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Tropical Travel Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $144,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and related orders. with any questions regarding
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-168A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-168A1.pdf
    • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $45,000 for Atlas's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Atlas Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $45,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-169A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-169A1.pdf
    • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $257,500 for SOS's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that SOS Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $257,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-170A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $27,000 for Advanced Steel's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $27,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-190A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-190A1.pdf
    • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 11 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $55,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $55,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-19A1.pdf
    • such as antenna structure # 1026702, more than 200 feet in height must be painted and lit. See 47 C.F.R. � 17.21. International Broadcasting Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832680001 at 1 (Enf. Bur. San Juan Office, rel. November 13, 2007). IBC Application for Review at 3-4. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). IBC Application for Review at 4. International Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC2d 793, 793 (1969). See also, e.g., Cumulus Licensing Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5286 (2008)
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-28A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-28A1.pdf
    • a light outage on June 3, 2005, but failed to contact the chief engineer. The Commission agent observed the light outage on June 4, 2005. U.S. v. Daniels, 418 F. Supp. 1074 (D.S.D. 1976). See Daniels at 1080. Daniels at 1080. See Memorandum, Opinion and Order, para. 7. 47 U.S.C. � 504(c). Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See Tidewater Communications LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 5524 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (``Memorandum Opinion and Order''). 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(g). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-28 [ \
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-48A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-48A1.pdf
    • the form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Globalcom's operating authority, including disqualification of Globalcom's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Globalcom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $800,700 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-78A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-78A1.pdf
    • the form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of NTS's operating authority, including disqualification of NTS's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that NTS Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $284,250 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-80A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-80A1.pdf
    • We have determined that Silv Communication Inc. has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1120. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Silv Communication Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,480,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules and orders as described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-10A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-10A1.pdf
    • businesses where more than one person may use the same fax machine. That question is not at issue here and our decision here not to impose a forfeiture does not imply agreement with Progressive Business's views. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against Progressive Business WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the citation issued to Progressive Business, Inc. by the Bureau on
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-112A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-112A1.pdf
    • machine, computer, or other device to send 40 unsolicited advertisements to the 28 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Laser Technologies is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $252,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Laser Technologies is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $252,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-128A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-128A1.pdf
    • should be reduced or cancelled, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $37,000 for Y Pay More's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Y Pay More IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $37,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). with any questions regarding payment procedures.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-12A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-12A1.pdf
    • test, for failure to relay the national test;'' The Commission ``should include comments in its ruling that the national test report will not be used as enforcement data, except for failure to report, and repeated or intentional violations.''). SBE Comments at 3. Sage Comments at 9. Bell Comments at 1. See also Abbott Comments at 11-12. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), Note (``...The Commission and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as permitted by the statute....''). Given the important public policy goals discussed above, in exercising our discretion, we will consider potential violations that may be disclosed
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-163A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-163A1.pdf
    • We further conclude that Travel Club Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,960,000 for its apparent violations of section 227(b)(1) of the Act and section 64.1200(a) of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Travel Club Marketing Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,960,000 for willful and repeated violations of sections 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), and sections 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) and 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-178A1.pdf
    • Simple Network, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). ORDERING CLAUSES , Simple Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Simple Network, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. with any questions regarding payment procedures. for further instructions on FCC filing addresses. The
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-179A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-179A1.pdf
    • rulemaking is required only if an agency adopt[s] a new position inconsistent with any of the [agency's] existing regulations'' (citations omitted). See Application for Review at 8 (citing U.S. v. Daniels, 418 F. Supp. 1074 (D.S.D. 1976) (``Daniels'')). See Daniels, 418 F. Supp. at 1081. See id. See 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See 47 U.S.C. � 504(a); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(5). See U.S. v. Saga Communications of New England, LLC, Civ. No. 10-12407 (E.D. MI). See U.S. v. Saga Communications of New England, LLC, Civ. No. 10-12407 (E.D. MI), Order to Stay (July 15, 2010). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.115. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-179 Federal Communications
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-42A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-42A1.pdf
    • of NANP invoices because the invoices were mailed to the wrong address and ADMA never received them. Third, ADMA argues that portions of the forfeiture are outside the applicable statute of limitations. Each of these arguments is addressed in detail below. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b)(1) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-48A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-48A1.pdf
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,607,500 for Mexico Marketing's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Mexico Marketing, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,607,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200 (a)(3), and the related orders as
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-49A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-49A1.pdf
    • $72,000 for Travelcomm's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. Thus, a total forfeiture of $72,000 is imposed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. , 227(b)(1)(C), and sections 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above. with any questions regarding payment procedures. 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of the Forfeiture Order shall be sent by First Class mail and certified mail return
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-58A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-58A1.pdf
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 17 unsolicited advertisements to the 17 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-61A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-61A1.pdf
    • 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules by delivering 43 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the 33 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Security First of Alabama, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $342,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Security First of Alabama, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $342,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), and section 64.1200(a)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-85A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-85A1.pdf
    • or other device to send 51 unsolicited advertisements to the 48 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $315,500. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $315,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-88A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-88A1.pdf
    • that Norristown Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,500,000. Ordering Clauses , that Norristown Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,500,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Norristown Telephone, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. with any questions regarding payment procedures. for further instructions on FCC filing addresses. The
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-89A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-89A1.pdf
    • determined that Main Street Telephone Company apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Main Street Telephone Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,200,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Main Street Telephone Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,200,000, for willful or repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-90A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-90A1.pdf
    • IV. CONCLUSION We have determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-91A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-91A1.pdf
    • services. CONCLUSION We have determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-95A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-95A1.pdf
    • computer, or other device to send 31 unsolicited advertisements to the 30 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $295,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 193, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $295,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-16A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-16A1.pdf
    • evidence, that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Radio License
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-23A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-23A1.pdf
    • in Appendix A. We further find that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $432,000 for apparent violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $432,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-24A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-24A1.pdf
    • or other device to send 97 unsolicited advertisements to the 79 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that National Employee Benefits Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $603,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that National Employee Benefits Group is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $603,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT,
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-2A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-2A1.pdf
    • to pay. We therefore impose a total forfeiture of $64,000 for Five Star's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Five Star Advertising Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $64,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). with any questions regarding payment
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-38A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-38A1.pdf
    • of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Starfone's operating authority, including disqualification of Starfone's principals from the provision of any interstate or international common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that RB Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $408,668 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-39A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-39A1.pdf
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests, however, that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-3A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-3A1.pdf
    • file was missing a total of fifteen issues/programs lists. Lazer subsequently sought Commission review of the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. DISCUSSION In this Order on Review, we deny Lazer's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Pursuant to Section 503(b)(5)(E) of the Act, the Bureau took into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Lazer has failed to
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-62A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-62A1.pdf
    • of Telseven's principals, including Mr. Hines, from providing any interstate common carrier service without the prior consent of the Commission, and/or revocation of Telseven's and Mr. Hines's authority to operate any business that is subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under the Act. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) calendar days
  • http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-97-68A1.pdf
    • [d. 23- TheCensusBureaucountsradiostations atthesamefacilityas each co-locatedAMlFMcombinationcountsasoneestablishment.- 24- FCCNewRelease, No.72140(releasedFebruary5,1997)(announcingthat4,854AM,5,429FMand1,868 noncommercialeducationalFMbroadcaststationswerelicensedasoUanuary31,1997). 3372 /' Federal.CommunicationsCommission FCC97-68 AlternativeClassificationofSmallStations.Analternativewaytoclassifysmall radiostationswouldbebasedonthenumberofemployees.TheCommissioncurrently appliesastandardbasedonthenumberofemployeesin'administeringitsEqualEmployment OpportunityRule(EEO)forbroadcasting}'Thus,radio(andtelevision)stationswithfewer thanfivefull-timeemployeesareexemptedfromcertainEEOreportingandrecordkeeping requirements.26Weestimatethatthetotalnumberofbroadcaststationswith4'orfewer employeesisapproxiIp.ately4,23927andthatmostoftheseareradiostations. IV. DescriptionofProjectedReporting,Recordkeeping'andOtherCompliance Requirements: Stationslistedinthethirdallotmentplanwillbeafforded90daystofilefeeable applicationsforconstructionpermitsontheallottedchannels.Theseapplicationswillbe placedonctit-offlistsfollowingtheiracceptanceforfilingtopermitthefilingofpetitionsto deny.Eachstation,followinggrantofitsconstructionperinitapplication,willhaveeighteen. monthstocompletestationconstructionandfileafeeableapplicationforcoveringlicense. Tosatisfytheserequirementsitislikelythateach'ofthesestations.willrequiretheuseof professionallegalandengineeringservices. . V. SignificantAlternativesaridStepsTakenByAgencytoMinimizeSignificant EconomicImpactonaSubstantialNumberofSDiallEntitiesConsistentwith StatedObjectives: Asnotedabove,therevisedexpandedbandallotmentplanwouldpermitlessthan thirteenpercentofeligibleAMstationlicenseesandpermitteestomigratetotheexpanded "TheCommission'sdefinitionofasmallbroadcaststationforpurposesofapplyjngitsEEOruleswasadopted priortotherequirementofapprovalbytheSBApursuanttoSection3(a)oftheSmallBusinessAct,15U.S.C. � 632(a),asamendedbySection222oftheSmallBusinessCreditandBusinessOppommityEnhancementActof 1992,Pub. L.No.102-366,�222(b)(1),106Stat.999(1992),asfurtheramendedbytheSmallBusiness AdministrationReauthorizationandAmendmentsActof1994,Pub. L.No.103-403, �301,108Stat.4187(1994). However,thisdefmitionwasadoptedafterthepublicnoticeandtheoppommityforcomrrient. SeeReportandOrder inDocketNo.18244,23FCC2d430(1970). 26 See,e.g.,47C.F.R.�73.3612(RequirementtofileannualemploymentreportsonForm395appliesto. licenseeswithfiveormore employees); FirstReportandOrderinDocketNo.21474(Amendmentof BroadcastEqualEmploymentOpportunityRulesanaFCCForm395),70FCC2d1466(1979).TheCommission iscurrentlyconsideringhowtodecreasetheadministrativeburdensimposedbytheEEOruleonsmallstationswhile maintainingtheeffectivenessofourbroadcastEEOenforcement.OrderandNoticeofProposedRuleMakingin MMDocketNo.96-16 (StreamliningBroadcastEEORuleandPolicies,VacatingtheEEOForfeiturePolicy StatementandAmendingSection1.80oftheCommission'sRulestoIncludeEEOForfeitureGuidelines),IIFCC Red5154(1996).Oneoptionunderconsiderationiswhethertodefineasmallstationforpumosesofaffordingsuch reliefasonewithtenorfewerfull-timeemployees. 27 Compilationof1994BroadcastStationAnnualEmploymentReports(FCCForm395B),EqualOppommity EmploymentBranch,MassMediaBureau,FCC. 3373 Federal,CommunicationsCommission FCC97-68 band.Stationselectingtoapplyforandconstructexpandedbandfacilitiesaresubjectto essentiallytheSllIIlelicenseprocessingrequirementsasananyapplicantseekinganew broadcaststation.ThechangesadoptedintheMemorandumOpinionandOrderwere necessarygiventechnicalconsiderationsandinternationaltreatyrequirements. VI. ReporttoCongress: TheCommissionshallsendacopyofthisFinalRegulatoryFlexibilityAnalysis,along withthisReportandOrder,inareporttoCongresspursuanttotheSmallBusinessRegulatory EnforcementFairnessActof1996,5U.S.C.�801(a)(l)(A).AcopyofthisFRFAwillalso bepublishedintheFederalRegister. 3374
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1095A1.txt
    • appropriate tool to punish its prior violations and to ensure future compliance with our rules. We believe a $4,000 forfeiture will act as an appropriate punishment and deterrent without unduly disrupting WS's ability to serve the public. Ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, WS Communications, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful and repeated violations of Section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1096A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1096A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1096A1.txt
    • [agency's] discretion.'' Id., 88 F.3d at 747, citing NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974). Infinity has wholly failed to show that there has been any abuse of that discretion in this case. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1206. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1134A1.txt
    • waiver request of Self Communications, Inc., filed May 24, 1999, is GRANTED to the extent stated herein, the five-year progress report filed as Exhibit B to application FCC File No. D126953 IS ACCEPTED, and the license for Call Sign KIVD0006 IS REINSTATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Self Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITRUE in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for its apparent and willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1182A1.txt
    • the Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base amount of $11,000 for violations of this nature. The correct base forfeiture amount for operation of a radio station without a valid Commission license or authorization is $10,000. We therefore reduce the forfeiture amount to $10,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean R. Jonassaint, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1197A1.txt
    • reduction of the forfeiture amount as a ``small business'' subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (``SBREFA''). III. DISCUSSION 7. Callcomm initially responds to the NAL by stating that because it ``is not the licensee of the transmitter located on Eldorado Mountain,'' the Field Office should have followed the dictates of Section 503(b)(5) of the Act and Section 1.80(d) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), for non-Commission licensees, prior to issuing the NAL. Specifically, Callcomm states that the Field Office should have given it a citation of the violation charged, a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview at the Field Office closest to Callcomm, and an opportunity to cure the violation before it issued the NAL. However, Callcomm overlooks the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1234A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to La Favorita in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the noted violation. La Favorita has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, La Favorita, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful violation of Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1235A1.txt
    • On July 26, 1999, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a $2,000 monetary forfeiture. Redondo Beach has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, the City of Redondo Beach, California IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act, former Section 90.113 of the Rules, and current Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1271A1.txt
    • ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for repeated violations of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.670. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission. With regard to this forfeiture proceeding, Danville Television Partnership, may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau cc: Vincent Curtis, Jr., Esq. Denise Moline, Esq. At the time WDRL-TV NAL was issued, the station's call sign was WDRG(TV). Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, codified at 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1294A1.txt
    • indecency standard.'' 15 FCC Rcd at 2518-19, citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 868-70. Thus, we find no merit to Infinity's argument that Reno v. ACLU invalidates the ``foundation of the NAL'' assessed against it. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1335A1.txt
    • October 20, 1999 Order for File No. 820EF0021 IS GRANTED. In consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violations, as well as PNI's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, we reduce the amount of the forfeiture to $25,000. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center, at (202) 418-1995,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-141A1.txt
    • history of overall compliance, the violation was continuous over a 16-month period. We therefore conclude that the base forfeiture amount should neither be adjusted upward nor downward as the adjustment criteria offset each other. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4), that Queen of Peace Radio, Inc., licensee of Station WQOP, Atlantic Beach, Florida, FORFEIT to the United States the sum of $7,000 (seven thousand dollars) for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 73.1125. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1428A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Leonard D. Martin, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1435A1.txt
    • no reason to await issuance of the guidelines before imposing the forfeiture order in this case. In the absence of any substantive response to our NAL, we impose a forfeiture for the full amount originally proposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Citicasters Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1454A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Reier for the noted violation. Reier has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Reier Broadcasting Company, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for failing to enclose its AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence in violation of Section 73.49 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1494A1.txt
    • Petition for Reconsideration raises several issues regarding the investigation, alleges that the record contains factual discrepancies, and contends that facts that were not disclosed in the underlying NAL were used as support in the Forfeiture Order. 5. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that remission of the $7,000 forfeiture is warranted. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $7,000 forfeiture issued to John A. Acconey IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Acconey's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1495A1.txt
    • Rules, and that the $8,000 forfeiture amounts to an undue financial burden for it in light of the $7,100 budgeted annually for KCOZ's operation. 3. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, in particular the financial hardship that would result from an $8,000 forfeiture, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that rescission of the $8,000 forfeiture is warranted. We note, however, that the actions at issue in this case constitute a violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. We will, therefore, retain a record of this violation, and the violation will be considered in determining an equitable penalty in the event any future violations occur.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1499A1.txt
    • In assessing the forfeiture amount for the tower fencing violation, the NAL noted the inspecting FCC agent's conclusion that Culpeper was aware of the deficiencies in the fence prior to the inspection, making this violation willful. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations, the Columbia Field Office noted that The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines listed a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the fencing violation and $4,000 for the excessive power violation. After considering Culpeper's history of compliance with respect to its operation of WCVA, the Columbia Field Office reduced the forfeiture amount for the excessive power violation to $2,000. No corresponding reduction was deemed to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1523A1.txt
    • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) to Morradio, Inc. for the referenced violations. Morradio has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Morradio, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b), and 73.3538(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1524A1.txt
    • further discussion. However, as explained below, we conclude that Ms. Gizzo has justified a reduction of the base forfeiture amount in light of her inability to pay. Ms. Gizzo argues that, under SBREFA, she is entitled to reduction of the forfeiture amount as a small business. The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidelines for upward and downward adjustment of forfeitures. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied, 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Under these guidelines, we consider a licensee's ability to pay as a relevant factor in assessing forfeitures. Our review of Ms. Gizzo's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1551A1.txt
    • to the Commission or to a charitable organization of his choice, as determined most appropriate by the Commission; and permit an authorized Commission agent to inspect his residence to ensure all equipment has been removed. III. DISCUSSION 12. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Martin's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1574A1.txt
    • Broadcasting, based on the information submitted we would find no reason to reduce its forfeiture amount. 10. Turning to ARS Broadcasting's claim that it might qualify as a small business, we will assume, for this discussion only, that it qualifies as a small business. The Commission, following Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and through its Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. Using this guidance, we do not find that ARS Broadcasting is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture amount. 11. After examining ARS Broadcasting's response to the NAL under Section 503(b)(2)(D)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1637A1.txt
    • has not demonstrated that its conduct warrants a reduction of its proposed forfeiture. Quite the opposite, WBC's intentional misconduct justifies use of the upward adjustment criteria cited in the NAL. The proposed forfeiture is fully justified and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for violating the terms and conditions of its license and the Commission's rules requiring operation within the parameters set forth in the license, and requiring express permission prior to a permittee's operation or commencement of program tests involving directional
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1667A1.txt
    • authorizations for Stations KNKG512 and KWB377 expired on April 1, 1999. Advanced TelCom did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 11, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $3,000 to Advanced TelCom for the late filing of its license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Advanced TelCom's response to the NAL. In the response, Advanced TelCom asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because Advanced TelCom is a very small business whose revenues are
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1802A1.txt
    • of those facts and arguments and reduced the proposed forfeiture from $11,000 to $2,000. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, William L. Leavell's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1810A1.txt
    • for Stations KNKL513, KNKD291 and KNKD302 expired on April 1, 1999. Mr. Sanders did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until July 14, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $6,000 to Mr. Sanders for the late filing of his license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Mr. Sanders' response to the NAL. In the response, Mr. Sanders asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because payment of the proposed forfeiture would impose a severe financial
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1873A1.txt
    • it requested reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture to $1,000. On March 3, 2000, the Bureau released the Forfeiture Order, which assessed a monetary forfeiture of $5,000 for willful violation of Section 73.1213(b). DISCUSSION 4. The Bureau issued the Forfeiture Order pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1914A1.txt
    • response on February 22, 2000. 3. In its response to the NAL, PCS Communications raises several issues regarding the Field Office's investigation of Coupe's complaints and alleges that the record is neither accurate nor complete. 4. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and as provided by Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the NAL is warranted. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL issued to PCS Communications, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall by sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1951A1.txt
    • (February 26, 1999), we believe that Three Eagles can only receive limited credit for its prior record of compliance. Based upon our consideration of the record as a whole, we believe a $6,000 forfeiture is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Three Eagles of Columbus, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1957A1.txt
    • expand their stations' original 22 dB( V/m interference contours. We find, therefore, that Chadmoore's and PTT Maple's operation from the Clark Tower site was permitted under Section 90.693(b) of the Rules. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504 of the Act and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the proposed forfeitures is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued against Chadmoore and PTT Maple ARE RESCINDED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1971A1.txt
    • in a forfeiture. Nonetheless, because Diamond apparently believed that American Tower was responsible for responding, and taking into account all the factors required under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we find that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced to $500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Diamond Services Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $500 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Commission's Rules, which requires the recipient of a Notice of Violation to respond in writing within a specific time period. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1994A1.txt
    • basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. Mr. LaPierre has not provided the necessary proof to evaluate his claim. Indeed, he has provided no information at all regarding his inability to pay. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Richard E. LaPierre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2004A1.txt
    • Telnet's authorization for Station WSI674 expired on April 1, 1999. Telnet did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until July 2, 1999. On September 10, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $2,000 to Telnet for the late filing of its license renewal application. 5. On November 23, 1999, Telnet filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount based on its financial condition. Though Telnet states that it cannot pay the forfeiture amount,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2005A1.txt
    • Therefore, denial of Joy's petition is warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2055A1.txt
    • arrangements to paint the tower eventually engaged a second company. By letter dated July 19, 2000, Kona Koast notified the Commission that the tower had been painted and was in compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires that, in examining Kona Koast's response, the Commission take into account the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2090A1.txt
    • Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules simply prohibits the offering for sale of the linear amplifiers. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, The Two Way Shop's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2130A1.txt
    • for Stations KCA237, KNKC731, and KNKC816 expired on April 1, 1999. Berkshire did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 24, 1999. On September 9, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $4,500 to Berkshire for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On November 29, 1999, Berkshire filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation of the forfeiture. Berkshire asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because, although the Commission stated that it would send renewal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2145A1.txt
    • pay the forfeiture. Preliminarily, Vincent Communications limits its documentation to the revenue generated by paging stations KNKK227, KNKK231, and KNKK233. Thus, we have no information about the financial condition of Vincent Communications as a corporate entity. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Vincent Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for violating Section 1.949 of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2201A1.txt
    • that the Commission ``take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.'' 6. We have reviewed the calculation of the forfeiture amount. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement'') sets a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. 7. Taking into account all of the factors set forth in the Policy Statement and Section 503(b) of the Act, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2285A1.txt
    • fully considered and rejected in the Forfeiture Order. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, KNFL, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2288A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Oregon Pacific. Oregon Pacific has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Oregon Pacific Railroad Company, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2289A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to La Favorita. La Favorita has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, La Favorita, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 1.89 and 17.4 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2294A1.txt
    • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2313A1.txt
    • on the sale, the forfeiture will no longer have an impact upon station operations. After reviewing all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe a $7,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Communicast Consultants, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2319A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to American for the noted violation. American has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failing to respond to written Commission inquiries in violation of Section 1.89 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-231A1.txt
    • L. Leavell ) Case No. 99ST10 Seattle, Washington 98818 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 8, 2000 Released: February 9, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against William L. Leavell, in the amount of $2,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violation of Section 303(n) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 303(n), and Section 95.426 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 95.426, regarding refusal to allow an inspection of radio station equipment. BACKGROUND 2. On November 2, 1998, agents of the Commission's Seattle Field Office investigated complaints that Mr.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2334A1.txt
    • 3. The authorization for Station KNKO605 expired on April 1, 1999. Mills did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until June 28, 1999. On September 20, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $1,500 to Mills for the late filing of its license renewal application. 4. On November 18, 1999, Mills filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount because Mills provides a ``valuable service'' that ``is needed in the community,'' and ``fulfills the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-235A1.txt
    • Its violation was thus not only wilfull, but intentional. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Supervalu's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, NAL No. 915ST0001, issued on January 19, 1999, IS DENIED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, Supervalu, Inc. must pay the amount of $11,000 within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on an U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. Payment may also be made by credit card with
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2450A1.txt
    • find that the violations were willful. The Commission has held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if it is a conscious and deliberate act or omission, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the violations warrant the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $8,000 for an unauthorized substantial transfer
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2478A1.txt
    • authorizations for Stations WRV927 and WXR916 expired on April 1, 1999. Page-A-Phone did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until May 19, 1999. On September 21, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $2,000 to Page-A-Phone for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On November 24, 1999, Page-A-Phone filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation of the forfeiture. Page-A-Phone asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because it tried without success, on at least two occasions,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2486A1.txt
    • it to monitor the site's lighting system constantly through automatic alarms. Finally, Crown argues that the forfeiture should be reduced based on its ``unblemished'' record as a tower owner and licensee. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2523A1.txt
    • person operated the station located at his residence; but he has not done so. During the transmissions observed on February 27, 1999, the operator of the station located at Mr. Martin's residence responded to the name ``Leonard.'' (c) As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Martin's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2665A1.txt
    • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Ford is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2666A1.txt
    • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Page-Comm is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2667A1.txt
    • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Ohio Bell is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2668A1.txt
    • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Star Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2708A1.txt
    • inform any party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation. In this case, Clear Channel clearly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by calling Mr. Schwartz and broadcasting the conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2724A1.txt
    • willful). Moreover, we reject CBS' argument regarding the popularity of the artists. Neither the statute nor our case law confers upon a broadcaster the right to air indecent language simply because the speaker happens to be popular. See The Rusk Corporation (KLOL(FM)), 8 FCC Rcd 3228, 3229 (1993). 9. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2736A1.txt
    • exceeded the commercial limits established in Section 73.670 during the relatively short period covered by the Bureau investigation. Under these circumstances, we believe a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that TELEMUNDO OF PUERTO RICO LICENSE CORP. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.670 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2741A1.txt
    • submits that he is unable to pay the forfeiture amount. In this connection, he provides prior year tax returns that indicate that his gross income was $13,665 for 1997, $11,393 for 1998, and $107,620 for 1999. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL indicates, the forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in evaluating Harris' response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other factors as justice may require. As
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2742A1.txt
    • On July 14, 2000, the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00). Hackler has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm our prior forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Kevin Hackler, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violating the provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules requiring persons to obtain Commission authorization prior to transferring station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2755A1.txt
    • wireless operations, which typically have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking into consideration all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $6,000 is warranted. Ordering Clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Commercial Radio is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.903(a) of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2804A1.txt
    • 2000, the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00). Hackler did not file a response. Based on that information, we affirm the July 14, 2000, NAL . II. ORDERING CLAUSES 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Kevin Hackler, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00) for violating the provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules requiring persons to obtain Commission authorization prior to transferring station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's rules, and for failing
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2810A1.txt
    • has submitted financial data for 1997 through 1999, and has requested that we keep its financial information confidential. After reviewing the financial data submitted, we find no evidence in Skywave's response that would support a reduction of the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Skywave Electronics, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $7,000 for violating the provisions of Section 302 of the Act and Section 2.907 of the Rules, which require radio frequency devices to be properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the Commission's Rules prior to their sale, offer for sale, shipment, or distribution
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2811A1.txt
    • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Checkpoint operated without a valid license for over nine months after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2837A1.txt
    • expected to know and comply with the Commission's Rules, and will not be excused for violations thereof, absent clear mitigating circumstances. GNOTS Reserve has not presented any mitigating circumstances that would warrant reducing or eliminating the forfeiture. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, GNOTS Reserve, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violating Section 80.373(f) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2840A1.txt
    • misconduct by Fisher. In addition, we have taken into account the sanctions handed down against other similarly situated licensees. On balance, we believe a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that FISHER BROADCASTING, INC. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.670 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2844A1.txt
    • Mr. Foster had ceded control of the station to Bear Valley. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that, upon his incarceration, Mr. Foster ceased having any role whatsoever. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Bear Valley acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. 11. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2858A1.txt
    • note that our imposition of a proposed forfeiture in this proceeding is independent of SBC's obligation to make voluntary payments for failure to perform according to the benchmarks and other parity guidelines set forth in Appendix C of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2915A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us. Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $7,000, for willful violations of Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-380A1.txt
    • to the NAL, Buchanan requested reduction of the forfeiture amount. In its March 22, 1999, Forfeiture Order, CIB reduced the forfeiture amount to $10,000 on the basis of Buchanan's inability to pay a larger amount. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, CIB followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407 (Released December 28, 1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-396A1.txt
    • amount of $8,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Subsequently, on June 19, 1998, the Chief, Compliance Division, issued the Forfeiture Order affirming the monetary amount of $8,000. DISCUSSION 5. The Field Office issued the forfeiture pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Field Office followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, released December 28, 1999 ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-409A1.txt
    • violations. See Forfeiture Policy Statement. In light of the facts presented in this case, we find that the licensee made a ``good faith'' effort to comply with the rule. Accordingly, rescission of the forfeiture is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, and Section 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the prior forfeiture of $4,000 issued against Long Nine, Inc. for violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules IS RESCINDED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested, to counsel for the licensee, David D. Oxenford, Esq., Fisher Wayland Cooper Leader &
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-420A1.txt
    • 1998). Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, art. 10(1), 15 U.S.T. 1606, 516 U.N.T.S. 205. 47 C.F.R. �� 22.911(d), 22.912(a). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 22.119(a). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 22568, � 31 (rel. Nov. 10, 1998); see also 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503((b); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-420 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-420 v w z { � � " � x y x y � �@��� �@��� iI�G���
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-475A1.txt
    • 33617 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: March 2, 2000 Released: March 3, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against Leslie D. Brewer, d/b/a/ L.D. Brewer's 2-way Radio (collectively, ``Mr. Brewer''), in the amount of $10,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violation of Sections 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b). These violations are based on the marketing of a transmitter not authorized by the Commission. The transmitter at issue was sold to an undercover agent of the Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office. BACKGROUND
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-476A1.txt
    • provided copies of its 1996 and 1997 federal income tax returns with its August, 1999, response and provided a copy of its 1998 federal income tax returns with a supplemental response received September 28, 1999. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Natchez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-485A1.txt
    • Mr. James Farlow has raised in response to both the underlying Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") and the Forfeiture Order. The NAL proposed and the Forfeiture Order affirmed imposition of a forfeiture against Mr. Farlow in the amount of $7,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C. ( 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, ("the Rules"), 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80, for willful violation of Section 303(n) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 303(n), and Section 95.426 of the Rules (CB Rule 26), 47 C.F.R. ( 95.426. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the $7,000 forfeiture amount. 2. The Bureau's Norfolk, Virginia, office received a complaint that Mr. Farlow's citizen's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-526A1.txt
    • revisiting issues previously addressed, or for reducing or rescinding the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 915TP0004 IS DENIED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-535A1.txt
    • is establishing a procedure to ensure that certificate violations will not occur in the future; and it is rare for Sealand, which operates almost 40 U.S. flag vessels, to miss the renewal of a Safety Certificate. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 364(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), requires that the Commission, in examining Sealand's response, take into account the nature,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-561A1.txt
    • account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Those factors include the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. See also Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules. After considering all of the circumstances, we believe the ends of justice will be served by imposing the forfeiture for the main studio rule violation but canceling the forfeiture for the public file rule violation. 6. With respect to the main studio violation, we note that we recently imposed a forfeiture of $7,000 for willful and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-569A1.txt
    • not believe that KXLE has presented sufficient reasons to justify reducing the forfeiture amount. Even if the AM equipment had been dismantled for repair on the day of inspection, as KXLE claims, we believe an $8,000 forfeiture amount for the inoperable EAS equipment for the FM station alone is appropriate. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, released December 28, 1999 (base amount of $8,000 for EAS violation). 6. Further, KXLE claims that its lack of knowledge of required EAS testing for the FM station warrants reducing the forfeiture amount. Commission licensees are responsible for knowing and adhering to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-571A1.txt
    • submission is not supported in this manner and, therefore, provides no reliable basis for Hoosier's claim of inability to pay. In any event, the material that Hoosier did submit indicates gross revenues of approximately $52,000 for 1998. A $4,000 forfeiture under these circumstances is not excessive. 8. The forfeiture standards in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines sets $5,000 as the base forfeiture amount for a willful violation of Section 73.1350(a). The Field Office and the Bureau reviewed the record, which included Hoosier's operating history and claims of vandalism, and concluded that a $4,000 forfeiture was indicated instead of the $5,000 base forfeiture amount. We affirm that conclusion. IV.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-572A1.txt
    • on April 7, 1999. On April 23, 1999, the Commission's staff returned those applications to Pampa as defective. Pampa refiled the applications on May 28, 1999, and the Commission's staff granted them on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) to Pampa for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Pampa's response to the NAL. In that response, Pampa asserted, among other arguments, that it requested application forms from the Commission on March 24, 1999, but
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-578A1.txt
    • Finally, Western contends that the proposed monetary forfeiture is ``excessive'' and provides copies of Western's 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal income tax returns as well as ``cash flow statements'' from March, April, May, and June 1999. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Western's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-579A1.txt
    • intent, the cited violations were willful. The Bureau also noted that while remedial action to correct a violation is commendable, it will not nullify a forfeiture penalty, and, further, that Northwest had not provided any documentary evidence to evaluate its ability to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407 (Released December 28, 1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-636A1.txt
    • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars (20,000). Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-696A1.txt
    • addition, Sunjet asserted that the proposed $7,000 forfeiture is excessive in comparison with its gross revenues of less than $80,000. However, Sunjet did not provide any tax returns or financial statements to support this claim. III. DISCUSSION 11. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Sunjet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-709A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. Willis Broadcasting Corporation has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, Willis Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty (30) days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-765A1.txt
    • amplifiers; and that Two Way collects sales taxes and charges $38.50 for installation and tuning. In addition, Two Way states, if its response does not close this matter, it is making a ``motion for Discovery.'' III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (Released Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Two Way's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-766A1.txt
    • website, offered tee-shirts for sale, and detailed his work experience under the name ``DJ New York.'' During a telephone conversation with Commission staff, James N. Dispoto stated that his full-time occupation is operating his internet radio station, which, according to him, just breaks even. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-848A1.txt
    • support that claim. The financial statements, which are marked ``unaudited'' and do not contain a certification of their correctness, indicate that KNFL's gross revenues were $56,387 in 1996, $80,888 in 1997 and $119,654 in 1998. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KNFL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.txt
    • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Attachment 4 EU interconnection rates Ecu-cents per minute at peak rates for 1997 and 1998, Euro for 1999 Local Single Transit Double Transit 1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999 Country Austria 7.61 1.80 1.82 7.61 1.80 1.82 8.41 2.37 2.40 Belgium 2.78 1.11 1.07 2.78 2.10 1.80 3.62 2.94 2.56 Denmark 0.98 0.98 0.93 1.82 1.82 1.67 2.22 2.22 1.91 Finland 1.81 1.42 1.43 1.81 1.42 1.43 4.20 2.81 3.28 France 0.71 0.70 0.61 1.73 1.71 1.50 2.55 2.52 2.23 Germany 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.71 1.69 1.72 2.61 2.58 2.63 Greece n/a 1.81
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-897A1.txt
    • EAS ($8,000) and public file ($9,000) violations. 9. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 405, the petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding is hereby DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 14 FCC Rcd 6106 (Compl. & Inf. Bur. 1999). 47 U.S.C. ( 503 (b). 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80. This violation was previously incorrectly cited as a violation of Section 73.3526(d). The incorrect rule cite has no impact on the case because the facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that the rule that was violated was Section 73.3526(c); however, we are taking this opportunity to correct the cite. This violation will be properly referred to as
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-906A1.txt
    • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcomm further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcomm is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-907A1.txt
    • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcom further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcom is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-908A1.txt
    • that it ``never authorized ACS to relocate the WPIM675 repeater . . . [and] . . . was not aware of any such relocation'' and that ``ACS never intended to relocate facilities licensed to Arvada.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Arvada's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-940A1.txt
    • new person within the Office of the Sheriff as the point of contact for all matters related to the license, and has notified the Commission of this assignment. III. DISCUSSION 5. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case, and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the forfeiture issued against County of Surry IS RESCINDED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-948A1.txt
    • violations, when coupled with its culpability, offset Bay's overall history and market situation. Further, neither Bay's small business status nor its asserted inability to pay warrants reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. The forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Bay Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000). The forfeiture is imposed for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 73.1201, 73.1675, 73.1690 and 74.1251 of the Commission's rules. Among other things, those provisions proscribe operation of unlicensed transmitters; certain modifications to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-960A1.txt
    • consummated the assignments. Champion's authorizations expired on April 1, 1999. Champion, however, did not file applications for the renewal of those authorizations until June 3, 1999. WTB granted the late-filed renewal applications on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to Champion for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Champion's response to the NAL. In that response, Champion argues that its failure to file timely renewal applications was not willful because it did not know
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-970A1.txt
    • any and all violations occurring during the period from 1993 to 1999 as a ``convenient target.'' Finally, Mr. Holcombe argues that he has been denied a fair hearing of the facts and the right to due process. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Holcombe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-977A1.txt
    • Meyers contends that the reference in the NAL to the interference complaints received by the Houston Office between 1993 and 1999 unfairly suggests that he is responsible for those violations and was intended to prejudice the Commission. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Meyers' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1000A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Litelco's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1001A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Neclec's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1002A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Net-Tel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1003A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that NPI's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1004A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that NATC's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1005A1.txt
    • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that North County's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1006A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Optel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1007A1.txt
    • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Paging Source's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1008A1.txt
    • act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that R and G Distributors' failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1009A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Trivergent's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1010A1.txt
    • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that USA Mobile's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1011A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Vanguard's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1012A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Winsome's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1014A1.txt
    • Advanced received the NAL on March 5, 2001, we have not received a response or payment. Having received nothing that would undermine the factual findings described in the NAL, we conclude that the violations as described occurred and that the proposed forfeiture should issue. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), Advanced Telecom. Network, Inc. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($46,700) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-103A1.txt
    • who should have been aware of the need to make serious efforts to determine whether the transaction required Commission approval. Based on these considerations, the NAL concluded that a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 was warranted. This is the base amount for an unauthorized substantial transfer of control pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (``Forfeiture Guidelines''). On March 13, 2000, the licensee filed a pleading captioned ``Petition for Reconsideration.'' We will treat this pleading as a response to the NAL pursuant to Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules. A notice of apparent liability is not a final order and is therefore
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1087A1.txt
    • forfeiture reduction. In addition, it is well settled that subsequent corrective action will not relieve liability nor avoid a forfeiture, and that Commission licensees are expected to be cognizant of the rules and operate their facilities accordingly. 4. COB contends that its longstanding compliance is recognized as a downward adjustment in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. While Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act requires us to consider a licensee's history of prior offenses, or lack thereof, in determining the forfeiture amount, it does not mandate that we reduce the forfeiture amount simply because the licensee has no history of prior offenses. A licensee's compliance history must be considered
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1103A1.txt
    • support its claim of inability to pay, KYOO has submitted federal income tax returns for 1997 through 1999. In light of the evidence submitted, for which KYOO requested confidential treatment, we lower KYOO's proposed monetary forfeiture from $22,000 to $12,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, KYOO Communications, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for the willful violation of Sections 11.35(b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) of the Rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1108A1.txt
    • main studio violation, and $500 for the repeated and intentional violation of the station identification rule is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the informal objection, as supplemented, filed by James Pridemore IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS otherwise DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) the Act, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, B&C Kentucky, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 73.1125, 73.1201 and 73.3527 of the Commission's Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1109A1.txt
    • However, Ms. Powley provided no contour map evidence to support her charge. Furthermore, our engineering staff has determined from a study of contour maps that the Pelham, North Carolina site is within the principal community contour of WDRL-TV. 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Danville Television Partnership is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's Rules. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1110A1.txt
    • ``Petition to Deny'' and the ``Objection,'' filed by KVBM, Television, Inc. and Caroline K. Powley ARE DENIED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application for consent to the transfer of control of BIP, Inc. (BTCTT-19980217IA) IS GRANTED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, BIP, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's Rules. 12. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-111A1.txt
    • inadvertent. Capstar accepted the CD with the multiple versions of ``The Real Slim Shady'' and did not take sufficient care to ensure that the unedited version would not be played. We thus believe that the airing of the unedited version of the song, however unintentional, was still willful. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1166A1.txt
    • license application or request for program test authority or STA must be granted or Allen must terminate all unauthorized operation of Station KMCA immediately. Otherwise, Allen risks loss of the license for Station KMCA as well as additional forfeiture penalties. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, M.C. Allen Productions is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for: violating Section 301 of the Act and sections 73.1615 and 73. 1620 of the Commission's rules regarding a licensee's operation during modification of facilities and a permittee's commencement of program tests; and for violating
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1175A1.txt
    • be reduced because it has no history of prior violations. After considering NetCom's history of compliance with the Commission's rules, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture from $13,000 to $10,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, NetCom Technologies, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand five hundred dollars ($10,500) for failing to register its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules and for failing to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1192A1.txt
    • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Kaminski's apparent violation of section 73.1015 warrants the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. In assessing a forfeiture, section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1194A1.txt
    • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we impose a forfeiture of $16,800 on WLDI, Inc. (``WLDI''), licensee of Station WCOM(FM), Bayamon, Puerto Rico, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. This action is taken pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). BACKGROUND On October 1, 1999, Chancellor Media Corporation, owner of WLDI, filed with the Commission an application to transfer control of WLDI to the Spanish Broadcasting System of Puerto Rico (``SBS''). WCOM(FM) broadcast the allegedly indecent material that is the subject of this order on October 18, 19 and 20, 1999. Just over one week later, on October 29, 1999,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1212A1.txt
    • see no basis for finding otherwise in this case. In addition, although The KBOO Foundation has submitted a petition signed by listeners who support the ``Soundbox,'' we have previously ruled that neither the statute nor our case law permits a broadcaster to air indecent material merely because it is popular. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In assessing
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1263A1.txt
    • On March 23, 2001, the Commission's Seattle, Washington, Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) to Brockway. Brockway has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Brockway IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1273A1.txt
    • of the Bureau's March 9, 2001 letter detailing the violations - does not defend substantively any specific instances of apparent violations, thereby indicating that the specific details provided in the Bureau letter were not needed by SBC to respond effectively to the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rule requiring ILECs promptly to post notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-128A1.txt
    • the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Considering all of the circumstances described above, we find SBC apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $94,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's collocation rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1334A1.txt
    • and repeated. Citadel does not dispute that the song was played repeatedly throughout the spring and summer months of 2000. Although Citadel contends that it attempted to render the song suitable for broadcast through editing, we believe that the licensee failed to purge a number of indecent references. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the general action in question, without
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1357A1_Erratum.doc
    • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, WWC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 101.31 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1364A1.txt
    • us to evaluate the licensee's current financial condition, therefore, we cannot assess its ability to pay the forfeiture amount. Consequently, we must deny its request for rescission or reduction of the forfeiture based on its purported inability to pay. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, KASA Radio of Hogar, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violating Sections 73.54(d), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1590(a)(6), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-137A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to AA Beep. AA Beep has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, AA Beep IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 301 of the Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1442A1.txt
    • Director of the Enforcement Bureau's Atlanta Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty-four thousand dollars to Zachery. Zachery has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Zachery Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,000 for violating sections 11.35(a), 17.4(a), 17.48, 17.49, 17.50, 17.56, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Rules in its operation of WDWZ(AM). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within 30
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1466A1.txt
    • asserts, however, that the basis for his Petition is the Smiths' ``desperate'' financial situation, which compels them to seek remission of the forfeiture. In support of his argument of financial hardship, Mr. Smith includes various financial documents. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1489A1.txt
    • forfeiture order should be issued against Mr. Brewer, and that it should be for the maximum amount. The record evidence clearly shows that Mr. Brewer engaged in unlicensed operations of both an FM broadcast facility and an unlicensed STL on March 11, 2000, in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Sections 503(b) of the Act and 1.80 of the Commission's rules state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that he was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-14A1.txt
    • unknown reasons, the communications provider did not do so. Additionally, Mr. Varela states that he acquired HCI in September 1998 and that no one brought the license cancellation to his attention. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the San Juan Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Varela's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1575A1.txt
    • by the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. - FCC - In this case, the call signs listed on each letter will be different. Therefore, a licensee must respond to each letter sent by the Commission in order to account for all of its call signs that are part of the audit. See Sections 1.17 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.17, 1.80. See also, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b). See 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b); 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov � �� ����PNG RR�~R�n� |�o� |�o� X*�N�*K
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1580A1.txt
    • Enforcement Bureau's San Francisco Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars to Mr. Nakamura. Mr. Nakamura has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a Marvin Eugene Barnes IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed amateur radio station. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within 30 days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1581A1.txt
    • Director of the Enforcement Bureau's Atlanta Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty-four thousand dollars to Zachery. Zachery has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Zachery Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,000 for violating sections 11.35(a), 17.4(a), 17.48, 17.49, 17.50, 17.56, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Rules in its operation of WDWZ(AM). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within 30
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1584A1.txt
    • contractor to provide twenty-four hour monitoring services for its tower. USA Tower maintains that it has acted in good faith in all respects regarding the incident that underlies the NAL, and thus, the forfeiture should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining USA Tower's response, and supplement thereto, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1585A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to Mitchell. Mitchell has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mitchell Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willful violation of Section 17.4 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1587A1.txt
    • basis for reconsidering the Forfeiture Order. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Alan-Leonard Brockway's petition for reconsideration of the May 23, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 3. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-165A1.txt
    • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Verizon operated without a valid license for over one year after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1746A1.txt
    • (``NAL'') in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to HCTV. HCTV has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Ho'ona'auao Community TV, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1747A1.txt
    • (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to NEPC. NEPC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Northeast Passage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willful violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1752A1.txt
    • record, we conclude that the law in this area was not clear enough to justify the imposition of a forfeiture under the circumstances presented. We note that we need not address here the continuing applicability of the section 214 condition at issue in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the NAL issued to Telmex International Ventures USA, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for Telmex International Ventures USA, Inc., Gary M. Epstein, Esq., Latham & Watkins, 555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004. FEDERAL
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1776A1.txt
    • 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2000, and the Wyandot was navigated on September 20, 22, and 24, 2000. 8. In its response to the NAL issued March 27, 2001, Shepler's requests remission of the monetary forfeiture. III. Discussion 9. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 506(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commissions Rules, requires that the Commission, in examining Shepler's's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1832A1.txt
    • a forfeiture proceeding is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking reinstatement of a cancelled license. If Falcon wishes to seek reinstatement of the license, it should file a request for reinstatement with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Falcon Radio, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for unauthorized operation of a radio station in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Falcon Radio, Inc., NAL/Acct. No.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-184A1.txt
    • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the September 1, 2000, Memorandum Opinion and Order IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1858A1.txt
    • amateur station until September 1, 2003. He has not operated his amateur radio station since turning in the license. In addition, Mr. Chan has submitted financial data demonstrating that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Accordingly, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $7,500 forfeiture is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) proposed in the March 10, 1999 NAL issued to Kornwell Chan IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Kornwell Chan, 1919 Audubon Drive, Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1867A1.txt
    • the Act and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Califormula's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other aspects. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Califormula's motion for stay of the Forfeiture Order is dismissed as moot. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-187A1.txt
    • have the apparatus or the technical ability to determine whether the devices he markets are compliant and contends that he should be able to rely on Skywave's representation that its devices are compliant. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the Atlanta Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Morrison's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1920A1.txt
    • WBOT that are separate and distinct from the violations in this case. Consequently, Radio One does not have an overall history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, and a reduction of the forfeiture on this basis is not warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Radio One Licenses, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-one thousand five hundred dollars ($21,500) for violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(e), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1800(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 14. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1929A1.txt
    • and enter the site. Hancock also indicates that both violations have been corrected. Finally, Hancock seeks reduction of the forfeiture amount, arguing that payment of the forfeiture would result in a financial hardship for the station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Hancock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1964A1.txt
    • 76.970(h) of the Commission's rules. In view of this failure to comply with the Commission's commercial leased access regulations, we caution Time Warner that further failure to provide commercial leased access information on a timely basis may result in a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.80 and 76.975(f) of the Commission's rules. In view of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for relief filed in the captioned proceeding by Kenney Broadcasting Corporation IS DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-19A1.txt
    • the amount to $14,000. 2. Arnold's Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition"), requests that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') specify the amounts assessed for each violation and state whether we arrived at the forfeiture amount by using any upward or downward adjustments. In this regard, Arnold argues that the forfeiture amount is excessive and should, at most, be $11,000 in accordance with Section 1.80 of the Rules. We calculated the forfeiture against Arnold as follows: $8,000 base amount for the ( 11.35 violation adjusted upward by $2,000 ($10,000); $3,000 base amount for the ( 73.1350 violations adjusted upward by $1,000 ($4,000); $1,000 base amount for the ( 73.1820 violation; and $1,000 for the ( 73.1870 violation. We made an upward adjustment of $2,000 to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2036A1.txt
    • structures told the agents that he had been aware of one of the lighting outages and had reported it to the FAA but had not been aware of the other outage. III. Discussion 4. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mega's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2042A1.txt
    • or reduction of the forfeiture based on its purported inability to pay. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. shall pay the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132940002'' and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2053A1.txt
    • claims that there was a sign on the fence with space for the ASR number, but the number had been printed incorrectly and InfoAge was waiting for a replacement number at the time of the inspection. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining InfoAge's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-20A1.txt
    • asserts that it made diligent efforts to bring the tower into compliance following notification of the lighting outages by the San Juan Office on July 3, 2000 and September 15, 2000. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining PRTC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2177A1.txt
    • and were awaiting installation at the time of the inspection. Finally, Rego has submitted the first page of its federal tax return for 2000, presumably to demonstrate that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Rego's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2225A1.txt
    • future. Broadwing also asks that the Commission take into account its past record of compliance with respect to the 197 towers it owned, asserting that the Commission has never assessed a forfeiture against Broadwing in connection with its operation of these towers. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Broadwing's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2280A1.txt
    • Thus, SpectraSite is responsible for the acts and omissions of its monitoring service. Finally, although SpectraSite took expedient measures to correct the violation, its remedial actions, while commendable, are not a mitigating factor. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, SpectraSite Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on April 5, 2001. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2412A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a $25,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Willis. Willis did not file a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Willis Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violating Sections 1.89(b), 11.35(a), 17.4(a)(2), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2517A1.txt
    • reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order is not warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Star's petition for reconsideration of the April 11, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2549A1.txt
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase to this base amount pursuant to upward adjustment criteria contained in the rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. Specifically, three factors warrant the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2560A1.txt
    • urge Commission licensees to consider their operational environment in complying with Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. In some circumstances, licensees may find it prudent to install more selective monitoring equipment to ensure that harmful interference to shared frequencies is avoided. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the captioned NAL issued to Statcom IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Statcom Communications Corp., 1324 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10302, and to its counsel, Pamela Gaary, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, Chartered, 1111 19th Street, N.W.,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-257A1.txt
    • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Verizon operated without a valid license for over six months after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2582A1.txt
    • had ceased, the issuance of a forfeiture in this case suggests that carriers must choose between seriously prejudicing the public by shutting down facilities that are not causing any harm, or risk being subjected to a forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining WWC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2621A1.txt
    • indicating that he would discontinue operating the radio station equipment, and has disposed of his equipment. According to Mr. Kramer, the proposed forfeiture amount is unfair in light of the other CB radio operators in the area. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Mr. Kramer's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2773A1.txt
    • has long held that remedial action to correct a violation, while commendable, will generally not nullify a forfeiture penalty. See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973). On balance, we find that a $10,000 forfeiture should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, M.C. Allen Productions FORFEIT to the United States the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for: violating 47 U.S.C. � 301 and 47 C.F.R. �� 73.1615 and 73.1620, regarding a licensee's operation during modification of facilities and a permittee's commencement of program tests; and for violating 47 C.F.R. � 73.1125(e) by failing to maintain a local
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2794A1.txt
    • requests that the Commission revise the NAL to reflect the station manager's complete duties and to reflect that all station operations, other than accounts receivable, were not under the direction or oversight of Wilks. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining BBI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2816A1.txt
    • tower lights and the third party failed to notify it of the extinguished beacon. Eure asserts that the violation was not repeated because the FCC agent observed the violation on only one day, June 9, 2001. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Eure's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2831A1.txt
    • Section 399B of the Act, and Sections 73.503 and 73.3527 of the Commission's rules, respectively, by broadcasting announcements promoting a for-profit entity and for failing to maintain the station's public file. In light of the station's otherwise unblemished prior enforcement record, however, we find that a monetary sanction is not warranted to redress this rule violation. See Note to Section 1.80 (b)(4) of the Commission's rules. Instead, we believe that an admonishment is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. IV. Ordering Clauses 17. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Isothermal Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational station WNCW(FM), Spindale, North Carolina, IS ADMONISHED for broadcasting advertisements in violation of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2862A1.txt
    • for NEPC to give its full attention to all of its correspondence, including the two NOVs and the NAL issued by the Philadelphia Office on October 20, 2000; December 7, 2000; and March 22, 2001, respectively. The information provided by NEPC adequately explains why it may have been difficult for NEPC to respond to Commission correspondence. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we reduce the $7,000 forfeiture amount by the amount of the forfeiture assessed for NEPC's failure to respond to Commission correspondence ($4,000). 5. However, the fact remains that NEPC did fail to register its Forked River, New Jersey, antenna structure and it does not dispute the violation. Moreover, it has provided no basis upon which to reduce
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2903A1.txt
    • NAL on August 7, 2001 accompanied by documentation regarding his ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. After reviewing Mr. Pettrey's response, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted based on Mr. Pettrey's inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the July 30, 2001 NAL issued to Jeffrey Alan Pettrey IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Jeffrey Alan Pettrey at 4014 West Main Street, Princeton, West Virginia
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2922A1.txt
    • some confusion'' as to the development of EAS. Finally, MAPA appears to seek reduction of the forfeiture amount, on the basis that that payment of the forfeiture would result in a financial hardship for the station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining MAPA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2937A1.txt
    • was appropriate, and we deny HCTV's petition for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Ho'ona'auao Community TV, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2997A1.txt
    • without a license. On September 10, 2001, the Commission's Dallas, Texas, Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 to Merrell. Merrell has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Merrell IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 and of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-306A1.txt
    • relocate. Given Rebus's financial situation, we believe that assessment of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship. Therefore, we conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture amount to $1,000 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Rebus, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by operating station WTAL(AM) without the required EAS equipment. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-311A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) to Netcom for the noted violations. Netcom has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Netcom Technologies, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) for failing to register its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules and for failing to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-312A1.txt
    • were on 161.19 MHz -- not on the frequency assigned to Union Pacific -- and were, thus, unauthorized. 11. We can find no basis for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture and, therefore, affirm the $10,000 forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-329A1.txt
    • expiration date of the authorization for which renewal is sought ....''. The STA request was granted on October 6, 1999. On December 13, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the request for waiver of Section 1.949 and the late-filed renewal application. 3. On October 17, 2000, the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued a Notice of Apparent Liability in the amount of $5,000 to Econopage for operating paging station KNKJ435 without authorization. 4. On November 15, 2000, Econopage filed a response with the Commission in which it requests reduction of the forfeiture amount. Econopage asserts that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because it did submit its renewal application
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-330A1.txt
    • and his birth certificate. Although he did not timely file his second set of documents, our review of the documents revealed nothing responsive to the facts alleged in the NAL. Additionally, nothing in the documents persuades us to reduce the $10,000 forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Mr. Rowland IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-338A1.txt
    • a.m. and 10 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on or about October 18, 19, and 20, 1999, WLDI, Inc., violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming on Station WCOM(FM). Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-342A1.txt
    • Isotropically Radiated Power (``EIRP'') is 63.4 dBm. Converting the radio station's EIRP of 63.4 dBm to an equivalent ERP results in an ERP of 61.3 dBm, which is greater than the 55 dBm ERP limit set by Section 101.31(b)(1)(vii) of the Rules. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Califormula IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-344A1.txt
    • FCC Rcd 4387 (1991)(definition of willfulness contained in 47 U.S.C. � 312(f) applies equally to 47 U.S.C. � 503). Furthermore, a continuing violation is ``repeated'' if it lasts more than one day. Id, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the violations warrant the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice my require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $8,000 for an unauthorized substantial transfer
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-368A1.txt
    • the Act by a common carrier. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined that an appropriate base amount is $2,000 per violation. Application of that base amount to each of VoiceStream's violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $24,000. We find
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-370A1.txt
    • statements indicate that it had gross revenues of $237,171.30 in 1997, $190,935.93 in 1998, and $231,332.82 in 1999. The proposed forfeiture amount of $5,000 is not excessive in the context of these revenues. Therefore, we affirm the forfeiture of $5,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Joe L. Ford, d/b/a Ford Communications, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-382A1.txt
    • 1999, Checkpoint filed an application for renewal of the authorization for that station and requested a waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules. On April 3, 2000, the Commission granted Checkpoint's waiver request and reinstated its authority to operate Station WPCA811. On December 14, 2000, the Enforcement Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to Checkpoint for operating without a valid license. In its response to the NAL, Checkpoint argues that the one-year statute of limitations in Section 503(b)(6)(B) prohibits the Commission from imposing the proposed forfeiture. In support of its assertion, Checkpoint states that it received Special Temporary
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-392A1.txt
    • assessed for AT&T's alleged operation of a PCS station without authorization from a site in Humacao, Puerto Rico. Based on AT&T's response, it is clear that AT&T did not engage in the operation at issue in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to AT&T IS RESCINDED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-403A1.txt
    • runs from December 1999 (one year before the issuance of the NAL) to March 24, 2000, and that the unauthorized operation of the captioned stations during that period does not warrant a $6,000 forfeiture. II. Discussion 4. As the NAL explicitly states, TPSD assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Commercial Radio's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-456A1.txt
    • for the base amount of $4,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that El Mundo's ``petition for reconsideration'' filed November 22, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent that we approve a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $6,000 to $4,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, El Mundo Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of Stations WKAQ(AM), San Juan, PR, and WUKQ(AM), Ponce, PR, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00), for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-458A1.txt
    • the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. However, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is the base amount for this violation. Therefore, we are reducing the forfeiture amount to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) on our own motion. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Dr. John G. Pierre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-459A1.txt
    • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to Ohio Bell. Ohio Bell has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-491A1.txt
    • who should have been aware of the need to make serious efforts to determine whether the transaction required Commission approval. Based on these considerations, the NAL concluded that a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 was warranted. This is the base amount for an unauthorized substantial transfer of control pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (``Forfeiture Guidelines''). On April 21, 2000, the licensee filed a pleading captioned ``Petition for Reconsideration.'' We will treat this pleading as a response to the NAL pursuant to Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules. A notice of apparent liability is not a final order and is therefore
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-502A1.txt
    • WCVP. During our review of FCC records, we found that Cherokee Broadcasting had a history of overall compliance with the Rules. Consequently, in this case, we will reduce the $8,000 forfeiture to $6,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Cherokee Broadcasting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,500 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requiring it to have operating EAS equipment in place. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-504A1.txt
    • states that, following the second false ELT activation, it installed a new ELT. In addition, Oahu Aviation apologized for the false activations and promised to take ``every precaution to prevent any further disruption.'' III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the Honolulu Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') requires that, in examining Oahu Aviation's response, the Commission take into account the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-526A1.txt
    • it can provide the necessary information on the tower registration form. Radford also requests that we take into account its financial status and provides tax returns for 1997, 1998 and 1999. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Radford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-537A1.txt
    • 2, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we impose a forfeiture of $7,000 on Infinity Radio License, Inc. (``Infinity''), licensee of Station WLLD(FM), Holmes Beach, Florida, for a willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. This action is taken pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. By Notice of Apparent Liability, DA 00-2724, released December 5, 2000 (``NAL''), we determined that certain material apparently broadcast over WLLD(FM) on September 11, 1999, was indecent. After considering the context, we opined that the language from two discrete excerpts from the live rap and hip hop concert, ``The Last Damn Show,'' contained patently offensive references to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-540A1.txt
    • which supported the downward adjustments made to the proposed forfeitures. In both instances, the carriers submitted plans to eliminate their universal service debts to USAC and commenced paying down their arrearages prior to issuance of their respective Notices of Apparent Liability. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), North American Telephone Network, LLC is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-542A1.txt
    • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Advanced continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Advanced's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Advanced Telecom. Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($46,700) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Advanced Telecom.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-582A1.txt
    • necessary to foster compliance or serve as a deterrent.'' Contrary to TeleCorp's assertion, it has not demonstrated any good faith compliance with the lighting rules. Additionally, although it has apparently rectified its outstanding violations, we note that its corrective action will not excuse its past violations. After reviewing Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, section 1.80 of the Rules, the facts, and TeleCorp's response to the NAL, we believe that the $80,000 forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, TeleCorp IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $80,000 for willfully
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-596A1.txt
    • the day after its prior permit expired, and December 12, 2000, when it received an STA. Telemundo's apparent violation of Section 325(c) of the Act during this period is aggravated by its history of noncompliance with Section 325(c) between 1993 and 1995. Under these circumstances, we conclude that a monetary forfeiture appears warranted. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, which provides further guidance in establishing appropriate forfeiture amounts, does
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-636A1.txt
    • the Consent Decree and Time Warner's commitment to be bound thereby, we believe that the public interest would not be served by imposing a forfeiture, but rather by approving the Consent Decree and terminating further consideration of enforcement action. 4. In determining the amount of potential forfeitures, we are guided by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, which takes into consideration standards set forth in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act. Under these standards, $7,500 is the base forfeiture for a willful and repeated violation of the cable broadcast signal carriage rules, although the Commission and the Bureau retain the discretion not to issue any forfeiture, or to issue
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-661A1.txt
    • - TV6 transferred control of K06MU to Bear Valley Broadcasting, Inc. prior to having received Commission authorization to do so. Having received nothing to suggest otherwise, we conclude that the unauthorized transfer occurred and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that K.I.D.S. - TV6 FORFEIT to the United States the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 310(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3540(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-671A1.txt
    • entitled to leniency because it cannot afford to pay a forfeiture. If we deem a forfeiture appropriate on the basis of facts unrelated to Skywave's financial circumstance, Skywave asserts, the Bureau should consider reducing the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)(``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-672A1.txt
    • Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. We, therefore, can find no basis for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture and affirm the Forfeiture Order. Consistent with a prior statement by the Commission, our forfeiture relates to the period before AA Beep filed its renewal application. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-680A1.txt
    • in paragraph five above do not serve to reduce the proposed forfeiture in the NAL. In the each of the months at issue, SBC violated the Business Rules in other material respects, and the $8000 proposed forfeiture for each of those months will stand. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-682A1.txt
    • a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with at least one other case involving a similar transgression. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, PCS Partners, L.P. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-701A1.txt
    • of the Rules requires SpectraSite to immediately notify the Commission of any change in tower ownership. Compliance with this rule obviates the need to send copies of violation notices to any entity other than the tower owner of record. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, SpectraSite Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for violating Sections 17.57 and 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of changes in tower ownership, failing to post ASR numbers, and in one instance, failing to post the correct ASR number. 6. Payment of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-703A1.txt
    • 28, 1999, is of genuine concern. If a pattern of inadequate service persists, it could be the basis for concluding that that MediaOne has failed to provide the minimum level of technical support required by Section 76.971(c). In such case, we could issue a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act and Sections 1.80 and 76.975(f) of the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for relief of Fal-Comm Communications (Fal-Comm) in File No. CSR 5379-L IS DENIED. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau 47 C.F.R. �76.975. Cable Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-708A1.txt
    • have records to support its assertions that its employees posted the ASR numbers in conformance with the Commission's Rules and its corporate compliance plan. 10. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that no further reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. In conclusion, after reviewing Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, the facts, and AT&T Wireless' opposition to the NAL, we believe that a $14,000 forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, AT&T Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-714A1.txt
    • Station KPS323 did not cause interference or otherwise negatively affect the provision of any other telecommunications service; and (4) Page-Comm has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Page-Comm's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-720A1.txt
    • result reached in the Forfeiture Order. Therefore, we will deny its petition for reconsideration. III. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-721A1.txt
    • pay. After reviewing T & W Communications's financial documentation, we find that the $6,500 proposed forfeiture is reasonable given its gross receipts or sales of $510,816 (1997), $406,814 (1998), $511,304 (1999), and $370,928 (through September of 2000). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, T & W Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,500 for violating Sections 17.4(a)(2) and 73.49 of the Rules requiring it to register its antenna structure and to enclose that antenna structure with an effective locked fence. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-737A1.txt
    • Section 73.1015 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1015. Full payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission within 30 days of the release of this Order. In regard to this forfeiture proceeding, the licensee may take appropriate action as set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 504(a), as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order be sent by Certified Mail - Return
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-784A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) to Christian Broadcasting for the noted violations. Christian Broadcasting has not filed a response. Therefore, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Christian Broadcasting Corporation, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for failing to respond to Commission correspondence in willful violation of Section 1.89(b) of the Rules, and for failing to register the antenna structure of radio station WBOK in willful violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Payment of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-792A1.txt
    • were bleeped and arguably would not have been understandable to all viewers. Moreover, although some of the segments may have been short, this is not a case where there is a fleeting or passing sexual reference. Rather, this episode contains a series of segments with ongoing unmistakable sexual references. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-811A1.txt
    • exigent matters has prevented my response until now.'' We conclude that American has not provided evidence of ``unavoidable circumstances'' that would explain its 17 month delay in responding to the NOV. We also reject American's argument that the Commission ``lacks the moral authority'' to impose forfeitures on its regulatees who violate the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules clearly authorize the Commission to assess forfeiture penalties on regulatees who violate the Act or the Rules. American's assertions concerning the Commission's ``moral authority'' provide no basis for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. Accordingly, we deny its petition for reconsideration. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Section
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-812A1.txt
    • broadcast of indecent material apparently had no impact on the airing of the cited material, and its current procedures for editing ``Kramer and Twitch'' and advising audiences about its content have no bearing on whether a forfeiture should be imposed. See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973). 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. As explained
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-823A1.txt
    • of control.'' As detailed in the NAL, Citicasters assumed control of WBTJ(FM) without having received Commission authorization to do so. Having received nothing to suggest otherwise, we conclude that the unauthorized transfer occurred and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Citicasters Co. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 310(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3540(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-824A1.txt
    • to Voice Stream for violation of Section 17.4(g) of the Rules. In its responses to the NOVs, VoiceStream indicated that it had corrected the violations by posting the antenna structures' ASR numbers. III. Discussion 4. As the NAL explicitly states, the Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining VoiceStream's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-85A1.txt
    • III. DISCUSSION Based on the evidence before us, we find that Telecorp Communications, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Commission's Rules by its failure to comply with the required lighting of antenna structures and by failing to notify FAA flight service stations of the outages. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for lighting and marking violations is $10,000. Applying this base amount to each of Telecorp's lighting violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $40,000. Telecorp violated the most serious of the Commission's antenna structure rules. As the Commission stated in its ATC decision, ``[u]nlit
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-86A1.txt
    • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base amount is $3,000 for each of SpectraSite's three failures to file required forms or information (i.e., failure to file ownership change information). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-870A1.txt
    • crudely relayed her fondness for oral sex. See Regent Licensee of Flagstaff, Inc. (KZGL(FM)), 15 FCC Rcd 17286 (Enforcement Bureau 2000). We have consistently deemed such material indecent, and we believe the same result is warranted here. See also Rusk Corporation (KLOL(FM)), 5 FCC Rcd 6332 (Mass Media Bureau 1990). 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In assessing
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-87A1.txt
    • the Act by a common carrier. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined that an appropriate base amount is $2,000 per violation. Application of that base amount to each of AT&T Wireless' violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $18,000. We
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-899A1.txt
    • 1998, to: ``License Renewal Division, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.'' Star asserts that the FCC did not respond to inquiries about the application's status. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Star's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-909A1.txt
    • to his family. Mr. LaPierre's combined gross income and gross sales amounted to $178,947 in 1999 and $179,048 in 1998. After reviewing his financial documentation, we find that the $4,000 forfeiture is reasonable given his gross income and gross sales. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-950A1.txt
    • Charter responded on June 22, 2000. In their reply Charter simply states that the leakage violations have been corrected and that the system personnel acted as quickly as practicable to reduce power in the aeronautical frequency bands. Conclusion The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules. ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision. ``Repeated'' means
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-966A1.txt
    • grant of its renewal application. Now that it faces a monetary forfeiture for unauthorized operation, AA Beep disavows this assertion. However, AA Beep provides no explanation for its change in position. We have reviewed this matter thoroughly and find no basis for rescinding the Forfeiture Order. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-967A1.txt
    • an unlicensed frequency, and claims that such operation was caused by a malfunctioning transmitter. We have considered Callcomm's arguments and reviewed the record, and we conclude that the record is insufficient to support a finding that Callcomm operated an unlicensed radio station. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), the monetary forfeiture issued against Callcomm IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Callcomm's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other aspects. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-974A1.txt
    • for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of thirteen thousand five hundred dollars ($13,500) to Mr. Smith for the noted violations. Mr. Smith has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jerry Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,500) for operating a CB Radio Station with a non-type-accepted transmitter, with a transmitter output power greater than four watts carrier power in the AM (A3) mode, and with an external RF power amplifier, in willful and repeated violation of Sections 95.409(a),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-991A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Allpage's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-992A1.txt
    • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that American Metrocomm's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-993A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that ATX's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-994A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that CDS's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-995A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Chickasaw's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-996A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Core's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-997A1.txt
    • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Digital Teleport's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-998A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Fulltel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-999A1.txt
    • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that IDS's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-03A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-03A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-03A1.txt
    • while commendable, are not a mitigating factor. However, after considering Palouse's overall history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture from $10,000 to $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Palouse Country, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violating Sections 73.1400(a)(1)(ii), 73.1560(a), 73.1580, and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1073A1.txt
    • an NRUF report for one OCN, which was referenced in our NAL. We have not received a response from Allpage to suggest otherwise. Thus, we conclude that Allpage willfully violated section 52.15(f) and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Allpage FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1074A1.txt
    • an NRUF report for one OCN, which was referenced in our NAL. We have not received a response from Core to suggest otherwise. Thus, we conclude that Core willfully violated section 52.15(f) and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Core Communications, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1075A1.txt
    • report for three OCNs, which were referenced in our NAL. We have not received a response from American Metrocomm to suggest otherwise. Thus, we conclude that American Metrocomm willfully violated section 52.15(f) and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that American Metrocomm Corp. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1076A1.txt
    • report for three OCNs, which were referenced in our NAL. We have not received a response from Paging Source to suggest otherwise. Thus, we conclude that Paging Source willfully violated section 52.15(f) and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Paging Source USA, LLC FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1077A1.txt
    • an NRUF report for one OCN, which was referenced in our NAL. We have not received a response from Winsome to suggest otherwise. Thus, we conclude that Winsome willfully violated section 52.15(f) and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Winsome Paging, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1078A1.txt
    • adoption of the reporting requirements for number utilization and forecast data and the effective date of Section 52.15(f). We therefore conclude that Litelco is not subject to the reporting requirements of section 52.15(f) and that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against Litelco Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Richard Steiner, Litelco Communications, Inc., 23 Ostend Road, Island Park, NY 11558. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau See Litelco Communications, Inc., 16 FCC
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1086A1.txt
    • its response, Friendship does not dispute the violations. Rather, Friendship states that it has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and, consequently, requests a waiver of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Friendship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1091A1.txt
    • Commission's inspection. Tidewater also submits that there is no probative and acceptable evidence that the violation was repeated apart from the one day that the Navy pilot and the Norfolk Office Resident Agent observed the antenna structure on November, 6, 2001. Finally, Tidewater maintains that imposition of the base amount forfeiture of $10,000 for this type of violation under Section 1.80(b)(4) is too high and claims that the Norfolk Office did not consider its good faith or voluntary disclosure, and its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1127A1.txt
    • reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. As indicated in the petition for reconsideration, certain information set forth in the NAL does not pertain to Lightning. After reviewing the entire record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. See Section 503(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the captioned NAL issued to Lightning IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Lightning's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and IS DENIED in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1141A1.txt
    • 2002, the Commission's Miami, Florida, Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $17,000 to CTI for the noted violations. CTI has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, CTI IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act and repeatedly and willfully violating Section 302a (b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1181A1.txt
    • Forfeiture to PREPA for a forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the noted violation. PREPA has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1295A1.txt
    • no basis for further reduction. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, MAPA's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, MAPA Broadcasting, L.L.C. shall pay the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132620005,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1298A1.txt
    • York Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Rev. Dr. Nicholas. Rev. Dr. Nicholas has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), Rev. Dr. Philius Nicholas IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1307A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Brothers for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the noted violation. Brothers has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Thomas A. Brothers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1314A1.txt
    • radio station. 2. On January 10, 2002, the District Director of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Office issued the NAL to Networx. Networx filed a response on February 11, 2002. After considering Networx's response and reviewing the record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the NAL issued to Networx Corporation IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Networx Corporation, 1 Fishers Road, Pittsford, New York 14534, and to its counsel, Timothy K. Brady, Esquire, P.O. Box 71309, Newnan, Georgia 30271.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1336A1.txt
    • imposed without an evidentiary hearing cannot be used to the prejudice of that entity unless a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final order after a trial de novo requiring payment of the forfeiture. See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles (KROQ-FM), supra, 16 FCC Rcd at 6869. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1347A1.txt
    • Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines. Because CDS ceased operating as a competitive local exchange carrier, we conclude that CDS was not subject to the reporting requirements of section 52.15(f) in September 2000 and that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against CDS Networks, Inc. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to John C. Tooker, President, CDS Networks, Inc., P.O. Box 1165, Medford, Oregon 97501. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau See CDS Networks, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1348A1.txt
    • have reviewed Chickasaw's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and conclude that Chickasaw has not justified cancellation of the proposed forfeiture but that its overall record justifies a reduction of the forfeiture from $6,000 to $4,800. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Chickasaw Telephone Co. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1349A1.txt
    • Digital Teleport's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and conclude that Digital Teleport has not justified cancellation of the proposed forfeiture but that its overall record justifies a reduction of the forfeiture from $6,000 to $4,800. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Digital Teleport, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1350A1.txt
    • considered a willful violation. Moreover, FullTel's pledge of future compliance does not justify reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture penalty. We have reviewed Fulltel's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that FullTel, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1351A1.txt
    • that a reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted. We have reviewed IDS's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that IDS has justified a reduction of the proposed forfeiture penalty from $6,000 to $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that IDS Telcom, LLC FORFEIT to the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1352A1.txt
    • and thus was required to report only utilization data. We have reviewed R&G's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that R&G has not justified reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Accordingly, we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that R&G Distribution FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1365A1.txt
    • of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988). 6. In this case, we find that Results apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting Mr. Davison's conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1429A1.txt
    • no profits and that payment of the forfeiture would result in a serious financial hardship for the station. In support of this argument, TV 45 provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining TV 45's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1484A1.txt
    • 2002, the Commission's Miami, Florida Resident Agent Office issued a $10,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Leger for the noted violation. Leger has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), James Leger IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1502A1.txt
    • find that the material broadcast on WKQX(FM), in context, is patently offensive. Emmis does not dispute that the complained of material was broadcast when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. By broadcasting this material, WKQX(FM) apparently violated the prohibitions against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1571A1.txt
    • Forfeiture Policy Statement does not explicitly identify a base forfeiture amount for violations of section 73.1207(b) of the rules. However, considering all the facts and circumstances and Commission precedent, we find that a forfeiture of $1,000.00 is apparently warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the rules, Concilio Mision Cristiana Fuente de Agua Viva, Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1207(b), which prohibits a broadcast station from rebroadcasting the program or any part thereof of another broadcast station, without obtaining the express, written authority of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.txt
    • Commencement of an Audit of the Construction and Operational Status of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 14264 (WTB 2001) (station construction and operation audit of PLMR licensees below 512 MHz). Licensees must provide true and complete responses, and may be subject to sanctions for misrepresentations or willful omissions. See id. n.2; 47 C.F.R. �� 1.17, 1.80. See also 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). Reply to Response to Information Request filed by Futronics, Inc. (Mar. 1, 2002) (Reply to Response). Futronics argues that the Midport and GRH response letter was incomplete and inconsistent with previous statements. Futronics also alleges that the response letter demonstrates that Midport and GRH's applications were void ab initio, that the stations were not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1775A1.txt
    • to the subject violations and elaborates on other information, some personal in nature, which it first presented in response to the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. After reviewing the particular circumstances presented in this case, in accord with the discretion provided to us by Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that reduction of the $3,500 forfeiture to $500 is warranted in this case. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, C.W.H. Broadcasting, Inc.'s Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 4. Payment of the $500 forfeiture shall be made in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1834A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,000 to Mr. McCreary. Mr. McCreary has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mr. McCreary IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully violating Section 95.411 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1835A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to WRHC. WRHC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1836A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to New Wave. New Wave has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, New Wave Broadcasting, L.P. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1837A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Mr. Bushman. Mr. Bushman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mr. Sam Bushman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1844A1.txt
    • in location between the old tower and the current tower is ``very small in absolute terms.'' Finally, ACS argues that the proposed $1,000 forfeiture for failure to maintain records is ``duplicative'' and unwarranted, and that it has a history of overall compliance. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining ACS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1850A1.txt
    • Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992). After reviewing the financial documentation submitted by M&R, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $5,000. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that M&R Enterprises, Inc. is LIABLE for a FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1887A1.txt
    • the questionable nature of the guest's material and could have used a time-delay device, does not relieve Rubber City of liability. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find that on November 29, 2001, WONE-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1921A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $21,000 to Fenix. Fenix has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Fenix Broadcasting Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully violating Sections 11.35(a), 17.51, and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1945A1.txt
    • the World Communications, Inc., supra (where $5,000 forfeiture was originally imposed for numerous noncompliant television underwriting announcements repeated over one-year period). This case is more serious, as it involves the broadcast of a larger number of advertisements on many occasions over a lengthy period of time. These factors warrant substantial compounding of the base forfeiture amount. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). However, we do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2001A1.txt
    • and 2001. Sycamore also argues that the forfeiture should not be imposed because ``we have corrected all the problems referenced and we have made every attempt to operate in compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Sycamore's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2017A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2017A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2017A2.txt
    • conduct is considered by the Commission or its delegated authority in determining an appropriate sanction, Verizon will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of Verizon's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. Verizon waives any and all rights it may have to seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal or stay, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Consent Decree and the Adopting Order, provided the Order adopts the Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification. Verizon waives any rights it may have under any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2020A1.txt
    • Commission authorization; that an application has been filed to assign the license for WLVA(AM); and that the towers at issue have been dismantled, correcting the violation. In neither response does Madison dispute the violations. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Madison's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-208A1.txt
    • the average broadcast listener, we find that the material broadcast on KNDD(FM), in context, is patently offensive. This material appears to be actionably indecent because it was broadcast after 6 a.m. and within the period when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2094A1.txt
    • mitigating Family Life's claim, even if true, that its inability to afford to hire properly trained personnel contributed to its apparent rule violation. Noncommercial licensees are responsible for complying with Section 399B of the Act. See, e.g., Minority Television Project, Inc. (DA 02-1945), ___ FCC Rcd ___ (released August 9, 2002). Consequently, we believe a monetary sanction appears warranted. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specifies that the base amount for an underwriting rule violation is $2,000. In this case, we believe that no adjustment upward or downward is warranted and that the base forfeiture amount is appropriate. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). IV. Ordering Clauses 8. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a monetary sanction is appropriate. Accordingly,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2137A1.txt
    • system identified by the agent on April 27, 2000 that exceeded the threshold limit of 20 micro-volts, Charter was fulfilling its regulatory requirements with a monitoring and maintenance program that yielded a compliant CLI test result. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Charter's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2152A1.txt
    • simple accounting rate changes. The rule also enables the Commission to monitor the international accounting rates of carriers to ensure consistency with agency policies and the public interest. Legal Basis: 47 USC �� 154, 201, 211. Section Number and Title: 64.1001 International settlements policy and modification requests. Rule Year Added Bureau or Office 1.17 1990 EB 1.65(c) 1990, 1991 EB 1.80(a)(4), (b)(3) 1990 EB 1.791 1990 CCB 1.824 1991 MMB 1.931(a) 1991 WTB attachments SUBPART I - PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 Brief Description: These rules implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, including actions that may have a significant impact on the environment and require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA), and the determination
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-219A1.txt
    • the SUNY case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Radio One's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 14, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2205A1.txt
    • licensee been notified of the violations after the January 9th inspection, the violations would have ceased then. Finally, Tarrant argues that the forfeiture should be reduced on the basis of the licensee's history of overall compliance. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Tarrant's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-230A1.txt
    • 28, 2002, has not been completed. To the extent, if any, that Groveton seeks to rely on its efforts to correct this violation, we note that remedial action, although commendable, will not nullify a forfeiture penalty. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Groveton Broadcasting Group, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2336A1.txt
    • 16, 2002, and again in a meeting with the Audio Division on April 23, 2002, it offered to take KBKC off the air until the waiver request was processed, but was told that was not necessary. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AFA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2365A1.txt
    • Alpine requests the Commission to consider that it took immediate corrective action once it became aware that the contract engineer in charge of the relocation project failed to timely install the EAS equipment. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Alpine's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-23A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-23A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-23A1.txt
    • factor. See id. at � 20. 12. Consequently, based on our review of Citadel's response in light of the applicable case law, we conclude that Citadel did not violate the statute or the Commission's indecency rule through its broadcast of the ``radio edit'' version of ``The Real Slim Shady.'' IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's June 1, 2001, NAL against Citadel Broadcasting Company, licensee of Station KKMG(FM), Pueblo, Colorado, is hereby RESCINDED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested to Kathleen
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2400A1.txt
    • Infinity Radio License, Inc. IS DENIED. 6. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2401A1.txt
    • Corporation's petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2402A1.txt
    • Order, we impose a forfeiture of $12,000 on Entercom Seattle License, LLC (``Entercom''), licensee of Station KNDD(FM), Seattle, Washington, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, which prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at certain times of day. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received a complaint that KNDD(FM) broadcast indecent material on May 30, 2001 and on June 1, 2001. The complainant described the material broadcast, which, the complainant alleged, concerned whether a penis could be used to lift or pull objects. After reviewing the complaint, we issued a letter of inquiry to Entercom. Entercom submitted a response,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2462A1.txt
    • with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act. In this case, Multimedia admits that it violated section 301 of the Act by operating the four transmitters from an unauthorized location from February 1996 until November 7, 1997, when Multimedia ceased its operations from the Roswell site. Section 503(b) of the Act, as implemented by Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, states that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b), the term "willful" means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2473A1.txt
    • and lighting. Concilio further requests that we give special consideration to its non-profit status, although it has not submitted any information suggesting that its financial situation would make payment of the forfeiture difficult. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Concilio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2474A1.txt
    • deny the violations alleged in the NAL but contends that, in view of the cancellation of Lightning's forfeiture in the earlier proceeding, this forfeiture proceeding is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and ``law of the case.'' III. Discussion 9. The Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Lightning's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2477A1.txt
    • 16797 (EB 2001), citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970). 11. Sanction. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a sanction is appropriate. However, we do not believe a monetary sanction is necessary to redress the instant rule violations, and instead conclude that an admonishment is sufficient at this time. See Note to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). IV. Ordering Clauses 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Calvary Bible College, licensee of noncommercial educational station KLJC(FM), Kansas City, Missouri, IS ADMONISHED for broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.503. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2665A1.txt
    • Bible submits certain financial information. Faith Bible also states that following the inspection, it had the EAS equipment repaired and that it has instructed its Chief of Operations to keep the EAS logs up to date. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Faith Bible's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2691A1.txt
    • this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") we grant in part and deny in part the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC ("Radio One"), licensee of WBOT(FM), of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O") issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"), the Enforcement Bureau found Radio One liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $21,500 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 11.35(a) (failure to have operational Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment); 73.1125(e) (failure to establish a local or toll-free telephone number in the community of license); 73.1350(c)(1) (failure to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-26A1.txt
    • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a forfeiture of $14,000 on Emmis FM License Corp. of Chicago (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received letters dated March 20, 2000, and May 15, 2000, complaining about material aired on Station WKQX(FM) on each of those dates during the ``Mancow Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program. The March complaint alleged that the station broadcast a conversation between 8:13 a.m. and 8:16 a.m., which the complainant deemed indecent. The May complaint alleged that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-272A1.txt
    • although the complainant originated the call, the on-air personality could not reasonably have presumed that the complainant had the awareness required by the rule. Therefore, Entercom's recording of the conversation and subsequent broadcast thereof without sufficient notice violated Section 73.1206 of the rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard to any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2793A1.txt
    • been lied to and scammed and that the station was a week away from dismantling when the FCC visited the station the second time. Finally, Mr. Mu�oz submits that neither he nor his church has the funds to pay the $10,000 forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Mu�oz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2824A1.txt
    • the Commission's Denver, Colorado Field Office (``Denver Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000. Mount Rushmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mount Rushmore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2825A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000. Mount Rushmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mount Rushmore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1350 and 73.1400 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2856A1.txt
    • District Director of the Commission's Kansas City, Missouri Field Office issued the NAL to USCC. USCC filed a response on July 5, 2002. After considering USCC's response and reviewing the record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL issued to United States Cellular Corporation IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to United States Cellular Corporation, 8410 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Suite 700, Chicago, Illinois 60631, and to its counsel, Peter M. Connolly, Esquire,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-28A1.txt
    • submitted to the Commission if another federal agency has assumed responsibility for environmental review). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1307(a), 1.1307(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1307(a)(4). Other categories are wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, endangered species, Indian religious sites, floodplains, surface features, high intensity lights in residential neighborhoods, and excessive radiofrequency exposure. See 47 U.S.C. �� 501, 502, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80; and, The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Note 1 to Section 1.1306 of the Commission's NEPA rules, 47 C.F.R.� 1.1306, states in part that: ``[t]he provisions of �1.1307(a) of this part requiring the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2914A1.txt
    • Chicago District Office issued a $17,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Cornbelt Broadcasting for the noted violations. Cornbelt Broadcasting has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Cornbelt Broadcasting Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(g), and 73.49 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-291A1.txt
    • automatic alarm system will be reduced if VelociTel must pay the full forfeiture amount; and that investing in safety is a better use for ``scarce resources'' than payment of a forfeiture. III. Discussion 6. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining VelociTel's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2937A1.txt
    • Order, we impose a forfeiture of $21,000 on Emmis Radio License Corporation (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, which prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at certain times of day. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received complaints that WKQX(FM) broadcast indecent material on March 6, 2001, March 7, 2001 and May 17, 2001 between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. during the ``Mancow's Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program. The complainant submitted a tape of each of the Mancow programs containing the allegedly indecent material. After reviewing the complainant's tapes, we issued letters
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3031A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3031A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3031A1.txt
    • logged by station personnel. In addition, Oberlin asserts that payment of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on it and submits financial information for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Oberlin's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3032A1.txt
    • on any other day, and that locks were installed on the date of inspection and have been in place since that date. Therefore, Mitchell argues that there was no willful or repeated violation of Section 73.49. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mitchell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3070A1.txt
    • provisions of the Commission's rules. Under these circumstances, we find that complainant's telephone call falls within the ``call-in'' presumption of Section 73.1206, such that notice is not required in this case. We, therefore, conclude that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against Entercom New Orleans License, LLC IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Entercom New Orleans License, LLC, c/o John C. Donlevie, Executive Vice President, Entercom New Orleans License, LLC, 401 City Avenue, Suite 409, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3105A1.txt
    • closest FM radio station operating on that frequency was 70 miles away and thus it believed that that station was beyond the range of possible interference. Finally, California Speedway argues that it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining California Speedway's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violation, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3129A1.txt
    • the equipment has been installed and the EAS is working. Finally, Faith Mountain requests cancellation of the forfeiture because of its inability to pay, and provides certain financial information in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Faith Mountain's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3139A1.txt
    • that it is ``financially struggling'' and requests reconsideration of the proposed forfeiture amount. In addition, Beacon states that it has discharged the former general manager, and that it is attempting to comply with all FCC rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Beacon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3174A1.txt
    • of its purported inability to pay that amount and provides as supporting documentation its tax returns for the most recent three-year period along with audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Truth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3218A1.txt
    • public MPE limits. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Americom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the RFR MPE limits for the general public and failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing areas that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a maximum base forfeiture for violation of the RFR MPE limits described in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission recently determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules. In assessing the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3239A1.txt
    • contends that imposition of all or part of the forfeiture would cause a severe financial hardship. In support of this contention, Rev. Dr. Nicolas submits federal income tax returns for tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000. After reviewing the financial documentation presented, in accord with the discretion provided to us by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that reduction of the $10,000 forfeiture to $1,000 is warranted in this case. We have reviewed Rev. Dr. Nicolas's remaining arguments and conclude that they do not support further mitigation or cancellation of the forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Rev.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3292A1.txt
    • reduction of the $3,200 forfeiture proposed in the NAL for this violation. However, Truth argues that the $5,600 forfeiture proposed for failure to comply with AM fencing requirements should be substantially reduced, if not eliminated entirely. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Truth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3348A1.txt
    • the Norfolk Office, a local police officer observed the WAAA tower at about 1:00 a.m. on October 17, 2002. The police officer reported to the Norfolk Office that the WAAA tower still had no obstruction lighting. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3349A1.txt
    • watts. Additionally, McCreary stated that he would like to resolve the monetary forfeiture and offered to let the Commission take possession of his radio apparatus in lieu of payment of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining McCreary's petition, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-336A1.txt
    • factors exist beyond those already considered in the NAL for further reducing the amount of the forfeiture. Based on the totality of the information before us, we conclude that a forfeiture in the total amount of $5,500 is appropriate. Ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, that Northeast Utilities IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. � 1.17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that payment of this forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3390A1.txt
    • license for WIPC to Siber was consummated on April 30, 2002. Therefore, it appears that Seggi was no longer the owner of WIPC or the two antenna structures at the time the violations referenced in the NAL occurred. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the June 20, 2002 Notice of Apparent Liability issued to Seggi Broadcasting of Florida, Inc. IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Seggi Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., 2000 Universal Studios, Suite 604, Orlando, Florida 32819. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3403A1.txt
    • Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000. Manuel M. V�zquez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, (``Rules'') Manuel M. V�zquez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3404A1.txt
    • City Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000. Deans Cablevision has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Deans Cablevision IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3405A1.txt
    • Los Angeles, California Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000. El Dorado has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, El Dorado IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for willfully violating Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47(a), 17.48(a), 17.56, and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3407A1.txt
    • forfeiture based on the information before us. Mr. Bushman filed a petition for reconsideration on September 3, 2002. We have reviewed the additional facts set forth in Mr. Bushman's petition and conclude that, under principles of equity and fairness, rescission of the $7,000 forfeiture is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $7,000 forfeiture issued to Mr. Sam Bushman IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Bushman's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to counsel for Mr. Sam Bushman, Barry D. Wood, Esq., Wood, Maines
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3448A1.txt
    • being the licensee of Station WJFD(FM). While this does not excuse a violation, this factor is mitigating when we determine an appropriate forfeiture amount. 15. Thus, we find that on four different dates Edmund Dinis apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3488A1.txt
    • Sarmiento.'' Finally, Mr. Sarmiento asserts that mitigation of the forfeiture is warranted because he has been forthcoming by having initiated written contact with the FCC, has applied for an LPFM license, and has demonstrated a respect for local, state and federal laws. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Sarmiento's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3555A1.txt
    • asserts that the dates on these responses demonstrate the timeliness of the responses. Finally, BanJo notes that this is the first and only time it has been found to be in violation of the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining BanJo's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3556A1.txt
    • deny the violation. However, Alpha asserts that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture and submits tax returns for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and a balance sheet for 2001 in support of this assertion. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Alpha's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3566A1.txt
    • We noted in the Forfeiture Order that Mr. Brothers had not filed a response to the NAL, and affirmed the Forfeiture Order based on the information before us. On July 3, 2002, Mr. Brothers filed what he styled as a ``response'' to the NAL, which we are treating as a petition for reconsideration of our Forfeiture Order pursuant to Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). 3. In his petition for reconsideration, Mr. Brothers does not dispute that he willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. However, he asks that we cancel the $10,000 forfeiture because of, among other things, his inability to pay. The financial documentation that he provides demonstrates his inability to pay and leads
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3591A1.txt
    • the necessary forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, City Page & Cellular Services, Inc. d/b/a/ City Beepers is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3592A1.txt
    • the necessary forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Gabriel Wireless LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3593A1.txt
    • the necessary forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Golden Arrow Paging, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3594A1.txt
    • the necessary forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, SelectPath Holding, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3595A1.txt
    • the necessary forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Telephone & Two-Way Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3596A1.txt
    • necessary forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, UHF - DE, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3597A1.txt
    • the necessary forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Wharton Telecom Holdings, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3601A1.txt
    • willful violations of Sections 1.89(b) and 11.35(a) of the Rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Patrick's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby GRANTED to the extent noted herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(i) of the Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) issued to Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd. IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Patrick IS ADMONISHED for its failure to respond to Commission correspondence and for its failure to install EAS equipment at Station KTRY-FM in willful violation of Sections 1.89(b) and 11.35(a) of the Rules.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-373A1.txt
    • Office (``Miami Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Electronics Unlimited for the noted violations. Electronics Unlimited has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Electronics Unlimited, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for marketing a non-compliant high-power cordless telephone in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-383A1.txt
    • 2001, the Commission's Miami, Florida, Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 to Lightning for the noted violations. Lightning has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Lightning IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-453A1.txt
    • Bureau in this matter. Alternatively, NIE claims that it would be an extreme financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture proposed in light of its small profit margin over the last three years. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining NIE's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-574A1.txt
    • a $4,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to National Cable for the noted violation. National Cable has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, National Cable IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-585A1.txt
    • licensees are responsible for their agents' acts and omissions. Turning to WHNY(AM)'s claim of remedial action, we cite to another well-established FCC position: remedial action, although commendable, will not nullify a forfeiture penalty. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, C.W.H. Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,500 for willfully violating Sections 17.4(a)(2), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-622A1.txt
    • rule includes any word or words spoken during the call. Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006 (1975). The licensee does not dispute that it did not give any notice to the complainant before WWDC-FM broadcast the complainant's voice mail greeting. Hence, we find apparent liability. 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-677A1.txt
    • that the complained of material was broadcast when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. By broadcasting this material on three separate occasions - on March 6, 2001, March 7, 2001, and May 17, 2001- WKQX(FM) apparently violated the prohibitions against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-717A1.txt
    • no showing that the violation was willful or repeated; that the violation was immediately corrected upon being brought to its attention; and that it has an overall history of compliance and showed good faith by voluntary disclosing information to the Enforcement Bureau. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 506(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KYS's response, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules requires that the Commission take into account certain downward adjustment criteria, including minor violation, good
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-722A1.txt
    • encloses copies of his Government of Puerto Rico income tax returns for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and documents indicating that he is unemployed. Rodriguez also argues that his violations are mitigated by his remedial action and his status as a first offender. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Rodriguez's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-729A1.txt
    • of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988). 7. In this case, we find that Clear Channel apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting Mr. Shell's conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 8. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-730A1.txt
    • find that it is irrelevant whether the individuals requested to view specific documents from the public inspection file or whether they simply asked to see the public inspection file. M&R's failure to provide access to its public inspection file upon request is a violation of the Commission's rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-878A1.txt
    • IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Eure Family Limited Partnership's petition for reconsideration of the December 5, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $8,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-882A1.txt
    • the monetary forfeiture for this violation. 9. In conclusion, after subtracting $3,000 for the Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules violation that we are dismissing in this Order, we find Willis Broadcasting liable for a $22,000 forfeiture. IV. Ordering Clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules, Willis Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other respects. 11. Payment of the $22,000 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-912A1.txt
    • is required or that New World violated the rule. New World does not dispute the EAS violation. Therefore, New World contends that the forfeiture amount attributable to the Section 73.1400 violation should be rescinded. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining New World's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-935A1.txt
    • of compliance with the Commission's rules. Florida Power contends that in this case, its tower was not dark. Rather, Florida Power states that the tower was lit so that aircraft could see it after sunset. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Florida Power's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-936A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) to Patrick for the noted violations. Patrick has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) for failing to respond to Commission correspondence, failing to install and operate EAS equipment, and failing to maintain a public inspection file in willful violation of Sections 1.89(b), 11.35(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-937A1.txt
    • and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 11. Excessive cable television signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000 per violation. Application of the base amount to the captioned Charter subsidiaries' violations results in a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 for each. The total base forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-938A1.txt
    • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form when there is a change in the antenna structure ownership information) is $3,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-968A1.txt
    • on three separate occasions without Commission authorization, as described above. We have further determined that BroadStreet is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $5000 for each of the violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $15,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and authority delegated by section 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.� 0.311, that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-986A1.txt
    • Commission's Detroit, Michigan Field Office issued a $17,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Central Transport for the noted violations. Central Transport has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Central Transport IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully violating Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-996A1.txt
    • after 8:15 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, and thus is legally actionable. For these reasons, we find that on April 6, 2001, WAZX-AM and WAZX-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1011A1.txt
    • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Concilio's petition for reconsideration of the October 3, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $15,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1033A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1033A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1033A1.txt
    • required to operate the station at daytime power 24 hours per day and that he thought that the station had been identifying by call sign. Finally, Monroe indicates that all of the violations have been corrected. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Monroe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1051A1.txt
    • that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Mu�oz's petition for reconsideration of the October 24, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the monetary forfeiture IS REDUCED to $2,000 and IS DENIED in all other respects. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1052A1.txt
    • Act, Cornbelt must submit the report described in Paragraph 7, above, no more than thirty (30) days prior to resuming broadcasting, to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7-A820, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1085A1.txt
    • obstructed good visibility of the tower in violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules. Accordingly, we cancel the NAL. Because we are canceling the NAL, we need not address the other arguments raised by Pinnacle in its response. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700016, issued to Pinnacle Towers, Inc. IS CANCELED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Pinnacle Towers, Inc., 301 N. Cattlemen Road, 3rd Floor, Sarasota, Florida 34232, and to its
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1086A1.txt
    • Section 11.61(a). However, Adelphia states that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 25, 2002, and requests relief from the $2,000 forfeiture proposed in the NAL in light of the financial hardship it now faces. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Adelphia's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1089A1.txt
    • letter. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has been non-operational for more than one year, and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. or contact Denise Walter of the Bureau's Commercial Wireless Division at 202-418-0620 or denise.walter@fcc.gov. This spectrum audit will be the second audit conducted recently by the Bureau for licenses authorized under Part 90. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Commencement of an Audit of the Construction and Operational Status of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations, Public Notice,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1270A1.txt
    • base was unlocked and the gate itself was open. Anastos Media, instead, surmises that an unknown third-party cut the lock and requests that we reduce or cancel the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 5. The Buffalo Office Resident Agent assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Anastos Media's response and supplemental response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1271A1.txt
    • KUNX(AM) is a small market AM station using a Spanish news and talk format to provide ``an important new radio service,'' and that the proposed forfeiture amount would result in a financial burden for the station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Gold Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1366A1.txt
    • the forfeiture is not rescinded, the forfeiture should be reduced because the violation was minor, it displayed good faith after being informed of the violation, and it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Morris's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1435A1.txt
    • EAS equipment and to register its antenna structure. Finally, Simes asserts that it cannot afford to pay the forfeiture and provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Simes's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1444A1.txt
    • Field Office (``New York Office''), issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,000 to Blue Ridge. Blue Ridge has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Blue Ridge IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1459A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Assondieu Fortune. Mr. Fortune has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Assondieu Fortune IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1479A1.txt
    • during which Smith operated without the defective equipment, December 30, 2001 through February 13, 2002, did not exceed the number of days permitted it to do so by the Rule. Thus, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL issued to Smith Broadcasting of Santa Barbara, LP IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Smith Broadcasting of Santa Barbara, LP, 730 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93102. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1504A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ebanks. Mr. Ebanks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Omar A. Ebanks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1505A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $12,000 to Mr. Kamm. Mr. Kamm has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Scott E. Kamm IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1513A1.txt
    • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Rawlins Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1514A1.txt
    • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to J Transport. J Transport has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), J Transport, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1519A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $13,000 to Minority Business. Minority Business has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Minority Business and Housing Development, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1535A1.txt
    • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alejandro. Mr. Alejandro has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Fernando Alejandro IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1536A1.txt
    • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Frederic. Mr. Frederic has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Emmanuel Frederic IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1549A1.txt
    • the forfeiture. In support of this assertion, Mr. Hood submits his tax returns for 2000 and 2001 and notes that he is selling the station for substantially less than he paid for it two years ago. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Lighthouse's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1550A1.txt
    • tower lighting and reporting equipment. Finally, Mortenson argues that no harm resulted from the lights being out for one day and that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules supports cancellation of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mortenson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1551A1.txt
    • compliance with the Commission's rules. In addition, Tri-County maintains that payment of the proposed forfeiture will impose a hardship on it and provides its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Tri-County's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1556A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mexicana. Mexicana has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mexicana Car and Limousine Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1568A1.txt
    • of the forfeiture under an installment plan. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.106(j) of the Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed on January 22, 2003 by Alpha Ambulance, Inc. IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1683A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Pamal. Pamal has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Pamal Broadcasting, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 17.57 of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-168A1.txt
    • of the outage and then promptly installed a new fail-safe strobe ``flash head'' and related failure detector which will afford automatic notification in the event of a bulb failure as well as a basic power failure. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining SCCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1705A1.txt
    • Rules by constructing and operating WCVE-TV at variance from its authorized facilities without prior Commission approval. We believe that Commonwealth should be sanctioned for its violation of the Commission's Rules, and that a monetary forfeiture should be imposed for the apparent violation. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we note that in Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing forfeitures. These guidelines provide for a forfeiture of $10,000 as the base amount for the construction and/or operation of a broadcast station without an instrument of authorization. In this case, we believe that this amount
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1713A1.txt
    • to the tower base, but FCC personnel could not see it from outside the fence, the second involved a case where the tower was voluntarily registered, and Titan has no record of receiving the third NOV. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Titan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1726A1.txt
    • met the requirements of Section 17.48 of the Rules by promptly reporting the obstruction light outage to the Miami FSS, so that the FSS could open a NOTAM. We therefore find that cancellation of the NAL is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700023, issued to Florida Cellular Service, LLC. IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Florida Cellular Service, LLC, 17330 Preston Road, Suite 100A, Dallas, Texas 75252, and to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1727A1.txt
    • posted the ASR number as required, but that a contractor working for BellSouth bulldozed the ASR number sign during construction of a new BellSouth fiber system. Under these circumstances, we find that cancellation of the proposed $2,000 forfeiture is appropriate. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall by sent by first class and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Chuck Moffatt, Moffatt Properties Leasing LLC, 1960 McCullough Boulevard, Tupelo, Mississippi 38801. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. � 17.4(g). ASR number 1212292.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1735A1.txt
    • letter. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has been non-operational for more than one year, and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. or contact Denise Walter of the Bureau's Commercial Wireless Division at 202-418-0620 or denise.walter@fcc.gov. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces an Audit of the Operational Status of Certain 220-222 MHz Band Licenses, Public Notice, DA 03-1089, rel. April 9, 2003. Under the Commission's rules, if a licensee allows a constructed facility to discontinue operations for one year
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1860A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Ashley. Ashley has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, John W. Ashley d/b/a Ashley Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1880A1.txt
    • unless the forfeiture is cancelled or substantially reduced. WPGS also provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of its claim that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining WPGS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1910A1.txt
    • is a very small percentage of its gross revenues. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mount Rushmore's petition for reconsideration of the October 29, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1940A1.txt
    • before us, Roser asserts, is ``spotless.'' Finally, Roser argues that the imposition of an $11,000 monetary forfeiture would ``severely damage'' it and that it would be forced to consider terminating one or more of its employees. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Roser's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2032A1.txt
    • marine coast station on VHF Marine Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) in violation of Section 301 of the Act. On July 8, 2002, Amethyst filed a response to the NAL in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Amethyst's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2068A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Bloom. Mr. Bloom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Brian N. Bloom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2079A1.txt
    • asserts Alltel, because it took swift actions to correct the violations in both instances. Alltel contends that the previous contractor that it hired after receipt of the NOV in 2001 used substandard materials and ``victimized'' Alltel. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Alltel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2086A1.txt
    • Belle tower a hazard to air navigation. Finally, St. Louis Mobile claims that it is unable to pay the proposed $3,000 forfeiture and provides balance sheets for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this claim. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining St. Louis Mobile's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2100A1.txt
    • site. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has been non-operational for more than one year, and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. or contact Denise Walter of the Bureau's Commercial Wireless Division at 202-418-0620 or denise.walter@fcc.gov. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces an Audit of the Operational Status of Certain 220-222 MHz Band Licenses, Public Notice, DA 03-1089, rel. April 9, 2003. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Begins an Audit of Licenses in Certain 220-222 MHz Band Services, Public Notice,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2126A1.txt
    • inspections prior to the single lighting malfunction'' and ``implementing a swift remedy'' and by its having ``not experienced a similar equipment failure or been the subject of a violation of Commission Rules pertaining to tower lighting.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining VoiceStream's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2140A1.txt
    • other defects that would require repainting under Section 17.50 of the Rules or the Advisory Circular. Finally, Midwest cites its history of overall compliance in requesting a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Midwest's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-217A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-218A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mediacom. Mediacom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mediacom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2196A1.txt
    • assistance from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, is to ``[r]educe or eliminate interference to authorized communciations.'' See 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111(e), 0.131(h). The Commission has promulgated rules to resolve interference disputes. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 22.353, 24.237, 27.58, 90.173(b), 90.403(e). The Commission can assess a forfeiture for failure to comply with an FCC permit or license. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(1), (b)(4) (suggested forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000 per violation). 199 F.3d at 1192 (citing 960 Radio and Mobilecomm). Id. at 1189 (citing Letter from David L. Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Roger Kroh, Director of Planning and Development, Johnnson County Office of Planning, Development and Codes (July 2, 1997) (``CWD 1997 Letter'')). 199 F.3d at
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-219A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Tralyn. Tralyn has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Tralyn Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-220A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to North American. North American has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, North American Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-221A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to Qwest. Qwest has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Qwest Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(g) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-222A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Metro Birch. Metro Birch has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Metro Birch IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2232A1.txt
    • level on May 8, 2002. The Atlanta Office issued the subject NAL on June 24, 2002 to Atlantic Beach Radio for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and operating with excessive power. III. Discussion 7. The District Director assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Atlantic Beach Radio's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2253A1.txt
    • does not own WDNT's antenna structure and did not own it at the time of the alleged violation. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Brewer's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED; and that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the $3,000 monetary forfeiture issued to Brewer IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to J.L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC, 1305 Carter Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 18 FCC
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2342A1.txt
    • to this violation. Finally, Rotijefco asserts that payment of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on it and submits its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Rotijefco's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2360A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Southern. Southern has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Southern IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2366A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Air Paging. Air Paging has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Air Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2367A1.txt
    • during the inspection, the agent only mentioned the fence ``in passing'' and never inquired again about the fence or returned to the station to reinspect the fence. For these reasons, the licensee contends that the forfeiture should be rescinded or reduced. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining WOYK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2369A1.txt
    • the San Diego office traveled to Escondido, California, to determine whether station KSKT-CA has a main studio at 2230 Micro Place. On both occasions, the agents found that there is no main studio at that location. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Blue Skies's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2371A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Mr. Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2589A1.txt
    • Part 15 transmitter was observed by the agent. Rev. Louis concludes that the Commission never found a ``good functioning radio transmitter'' at the church, and that he did not violate Section 301 of the Act. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Rev. Louis's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2591A1.txt
    • telephone calls will not be broadcast without the consent of the parties involved.'' In this case, we find that Infinity apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording and broadcasting Ms. Tanner's conversation without giving her prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2614A1.txt
    • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures he has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Mr. Autry's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Billy R. Autry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $11,000 for willfully violating Section 73.49 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1745 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2615A1.txt
    • the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. Order demonstrating that it has filed an antenna structure registration application. Best Country's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Best Country. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Best Country Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2616A1.txt
    • it has hired another engineer to file Forms 301 and 302 with the Commission and is notifying the Federal Aviation Administration of the new coordinates. For these reasons, O'Quinn requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining O'Quinn's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2620A1.txt
    • NAL is inconsistent with several recent forfeiture orders issued with respect to Section 17.50 painting violations. For all of these reasons, Pinnacle requests that the proposed forfeiture be eliminated or substantially reduced. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Pinnacle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2645A1.txt
    • and is able to manage his own funds. The evaluation did not state that Mr. Kluz was unable to willfully violate Section 95.411, or that Mr. Kluz was unable to know the actions he takes. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Kluz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2649A1.txt
    • we should fine Alascom for failing to file its tariff. GCI Opposition at 1, 10, 14, 16, and 19. We deny GCI's request that the Commission assess forfeitures against Alascom in this proceeding. Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the Commission the discretion to assess forfeitures. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). If the Commission determines that Alascom's failure to file a tariff warrants the issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture under section 503 of the Act, it will issue such a notice in a separate proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.3. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159. Id. at 1157. See paras. 12-13, supra. Federal Communications Commission DA
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2661A1.txt
    • argues that he has a history of overall compliance. Finally, Mr. Joseph asserts that payment of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on him and submits financial information for 1999, 2000, and 2001 in support of this assertion. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Joseph's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2663A1.txt
    • of FM broadcast transmitters. 2. After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to support a finding that Networx operated the FM broadcast transmitters at the location specified by the NAL in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the proposed $10,000 monetary forfeiture against Networx IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Networx Corporation, 1 Fishers Road, Pittsford, New York 14534, and to its counsel, Timothy K. Brady, Esquire, P.O. Box 71309, Newnan, Georgia 30271.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2664A1.txt
    • AFA concludes that the NAL should be canceled on the basis of its history of overall compliance and because the proposed forfeiture amount is disproportionately punitive given Station KAUF's annual revenue. III. DISCUSSION 7. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining AFA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-267A1.txt
    • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to International. International has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (''Rules''), International Car Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-268A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Ian R. Walker IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-269A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alusma. Mr. Alusma has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Josue Alusma IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-270A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Coffee County. Coffee County has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Coffee County IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2719A1.txt
    • and ``One Call.'' The Commission will address the NAL as it relates to OCMC, Inc. in a separate order. Nothing herein constitutes a decision with respect to OCMC, Inc. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Apparent Liability with regard to One Call Internet, Inc. IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-271A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Brewer. Brewer has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,J.L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2722A1.txt
    • Behenna and Riordan, which, as noted supra, concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Star and Northeast intended to violate the anti-collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Star may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Star's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2722A1_Erratum.doc
    • Behenna and Riordan, which, as noted supra, concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Star and Northeast intended to violate the anti-collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Star may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Star's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2723A1.txt
    • As noted supra, the August 29 conversation concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Northeast and Star intended to violate the anti-collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Northeast may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Northeast's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2723A1_Erratum.doc
    • As noted supra, the August 29 conversation concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Northeast and Star intended to violate the anti-collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Northeast may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Northeast's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2741A1.txt
    • what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Air Paging's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Air Paging. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Air Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.903(a), 90.403(f) and 90.425(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2742A1.txt
    • hardship on the stations and provides the stations' tax returns for 1998 through 2001 in support of this claim. Ms. Suh accordingly requests that the forfeiture be canceled or reduced to no more than $3,000. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Suh's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2780A1.txt
    • argues that it acted in ``good faith'' by quickly correcting the deficiencies, that it has ``an exemplary record of compliance'' and that payment of the full forfeiture amount would be ``a difficult burden'' for Calvary. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Calvary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2824A1.txt
    • Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 1.106 of the Rules, Ho'ona'auao Community Television, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the February 4, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the $4,000 monetary forfeiture IS REDUCED to $2,000. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-282A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to WHYZ. WHYZ has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, WHYZ Radio, L.P. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2853A1.txt
    • that WCSS apparently committed a willful and repeated violation of a Commission order by failing to provide information and documents directed by the Bureau. We have further determined that WCSS is apparently liable in the amount of $10,000. 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��0.111, 0.311, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. (``WCSS'') IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $ 10,000 for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order as described in the paragraphs
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2888A1.txt
    • not refuse to allow the agents to inspect his station. In addition, Mr. Woods submitted financial documentation concerning his inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture and also stated that he had taken medication before the agents arrived at his house. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Woods' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2889A1.txt
    • he believed, on the basis of a telegram from the FCC (received by the previous licensee of WANA), that WANA's tower was not required to be registered because it has no marking or lighting requirements. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Lankford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2900A1.txt
    • overall compliance and took prompt remedial action following the inspection. Clarke also argues that it is ``a small, privately owned company and the amount of the forfeiture is significant to an operator of Clarke's size.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Clarke's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3019A1.txt
    • Mount Rushmore must submit the report described in Paragraph 8, no more than thirty (30) after release of this order, to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7-A820, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3038A1.txt
    • violated Section 73.1745 of the Commission's rules by operating WRDQ-DT without prior Commission approval or authority. We believe that Licensee should be sanctioned for its violation of the Commission's rules, and that a monetary forfeiture should be imposed for the apparent violation. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we note that in Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing forfeitures. These guidelines provide for a forfeiture of $10,000 as the base amount for the construction and/or operation of a broadcast station without an instrument of authorization. In this case, we believe that this amount
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3061A1.txt
    • of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent violation, we believe it appropriate that Tempe be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that the base amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be the appropriate proposed forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3063A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3064A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3065A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3066A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3067A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3068A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3069A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3070A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3071A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3072A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3073A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3074A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3075A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3076A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3077A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3078A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3079A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3080A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3081A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3082A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3083A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3084A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3085A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3086A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3087A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3088A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3089A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3090A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3147A1.txt
    • through the Colorado Broadcasters Association, and had an FCC Regulatory Compliance Certification. Finally, Commonwealth asserts that the proposed forfeiture amount issued to its ``small market station'' will play a determining factor in its future financial existence. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Commonwealth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3159A1.txt
    • proposed monetary forfeiture, arguing that its attempts to register the tower and a history of overall compliance mitigate the violations. Sutro also contends that, if a forfeiture is imposed, it should be no more than $500. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Sutro's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3179A1.txt
    • FAA issued a new No Hazard determination on the basis of a tower height of 202 feet. The new No Hazard determination indicates that no painting or lighting is now required for FBS's antenna structure. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining FBS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3180A1.txt
    • that Nextmedia did not willfully violate either Section 17.47(a)(1) or 17.48(a). We also conclude that, based on Nextmedia's good faith efforts to comply and its history of overall compliance, no forfeiture should be imposed for its violation of Section 17.51(a). 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL issued to Nextmedia Operating, Inc. on August 28, 2002 IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail to Nextmedia Operating, Inc., 6312 Fiddlers Green Circle, Englewood, Colorado 80111. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3200A1.txt
    • ownership of an antenna structure). Hill Country filed its response to the NAL on October 17, 2002. In response to the NAL, Hill Country seeks a reduction of the forfeiture based upon ``its history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules.'' discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Hill Country's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3236A1.txt
    • failure to maintain an effective locked fence or other enclosure around the base of its antenna tower in willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. In its response, Cumulus requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Cumulus's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3274A1.txt
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Suwannee Cable TV. Suwannee Cable TV has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Suwannee Cable TV IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3276A1.txt
    • due to financial constraints.'' Finally, ``[b]y way of mitigation,'' Max Media explained that the delay in replacing the top high intensity light was due to a malfunctioning automatic alarm system, which Continental had warranted to be in compliance with FCC requirements. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Max Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3276A1_Erratum.doc
    • due to financial constraints.'' Finally, ``[b]y way of mitigation,'' Max Media explained that the delay in replacing the top high intensity light was due to a malfunctioning automatic alarm system, which Continental had warranted to be in compliance with FCC requirements. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Max Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-330A1.txt
    • ASR was filed with the Commission on August 16, 2002, and was granted on the same day. Haviland requests that the Commission take into consideration its immediate actions once it became aware of the ``regulatory irregularity.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Haviland's response, and supplement thereto, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3314A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Green. Mr. Green has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Patrick S. Green IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-331A1.txt
    • 74.1235(e) by KYLZ-FM1 was an isolated incident and that the station caused no interference during the brief period of the violation. Finally, AGM asserts that it has an overall record of compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AGM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3320A1.txt
    • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Davies' report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Davies Communications Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-332A1.txt
    • transmissions and that it has taken measures to ensure that the violation does not recur. Finally, MariTEL asserts that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules warrants reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining MariTEL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3339A1.txt
    • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Chatterbox's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Chatterbox, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-336A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Ho'ona'auao. Ho'ona'auao has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Ho'ona'auao Community Television, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-337A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Marcel Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-338A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to AAT. AAT has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, AAT Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3408A1.txt
    • of service, which it subsequently reported to the local police, and requested that the Commission consider reducing the forfeiture as a result. Valley provided no other information in its response regarding the signal leakage. Discussion The Commission assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Valley's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3410A1.txt
    • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violation and ensure that it does not recur. Radio Centre's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Radio Centre, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3412A1.txt
    • forfeiture, without the aforementioned process, is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. 14. Finally, Access.1 argues that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced based on its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 15. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Access.1's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3429A1.txt
    • W submits tax returns from 1999 - 2000. Despite requesting additional time to produce documentation in support of its request for cancellation of the proposed fine, J & W has produced no such documentation. III DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining J & W's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-342A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to Small Town. Small Town has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Small Town Radio Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3431A1.txt
    • the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice requires. Under the circumstances, we believe a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) is apparently warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Pacifica Broadcasting Company is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) for its willful and repeated violation of section 301 of the Act and section 73.1690 of the Commission's rules. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules that within thirty (30)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3497A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Clephar. Mr. Clephar has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission Rules (``Rules''), Daniel Clephar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3513A1.txt
    • remain a Commission licensee and thus whether its captioned broadcast license should be revoked. 3. The OSC also ordered the Presiding Judge, notwithstanding the resolution of the designated issues, to determine whether the Commission should impose a monetary forfeiture against RMI for having willfully and repeatedly violated numerous statutory and regulatory provisions administered by the Commission. In accordance with Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the OSC set the maximum forfeiture amount at $300,000. 4. The OSC ordered RMI, pursuant to Section 1.91(c) of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of its receipt of the OSC (i.e., by December 26, 2002), to file a written notice of appearance in order to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard. The OSC
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3538A1.txt
    • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Deans Cablevision's petition for reconsideration of the December 12, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $10,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3540A1.txt
    • Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Lovelock. Lovelock has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission Rules (``Rules''), Annetta Lovelock Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Rum Runner Caribbean Restaurant & Lounge IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3544A1.txt
    • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Accordingly, we are proposing a forfeiture in the amount of $7,000. We caution Johannus that any subsequent importing and marketing of non-compliant digital electronic organs will result in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-354A1.txt
    • Commission's Tampa, Florida, Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Accessory. Accessory has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (''Rules''), Accessory Connection Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully violating Sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-355A1.txt
    • the NAL, J4 Broadcasting does not dispute that it violated these rules. However, J4 Broadcasting requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture and submits its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this request. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining J4 Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3564A1.txt
    • X requests substantial reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture citing the immediate measures it took to correct the violations noted in the NAL. The response is also accompanied by financial statements. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Radio X's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-356A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Piedmont. Piedmont has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Piedmont Radio Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 17.4(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3597A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Lipscomb. Mr. Lipscomb has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission Rules (``Rules''), Tori Javier Lipscomb IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-361A1.txt
    • acquired USA Mobile prior to the September 15, 2000 reporting deadline through an assignment of license, and USA Mobile no longer existed prior to September 15, 2000. After considering Arch's response and reviewing the record, we find that the proposed monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the NAL issued to USA Mobile Communications, Inc. II IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Arch Wireless, Inc., 1800 West Park Drive, Suite 250, Westborough, MA 01581 and to its counsel, L. Charles Keller, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-362A1.txt
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to P & G. P & G has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, P & G Properties, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3638A1.txt
    • $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules. Based upon our review of all the pertinent factors as required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Isothermal Community College is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Isothermal Community
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3638A1_Erratum.doc
    • $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules. Based upon our review of all the pertinent factors as required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Isothermal Community College is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Isothermal Community
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-363A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Marshall County. Marshall County has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Marshall County Radio Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3654A1.txt
    • for ``initial work on tower registration for Bay Minette and Atmore, other consulting/ repair visit time to date.'' SMC also provides a letter dated September 4, 2002, certifying that the EAS equipment has been repaired. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining SMC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3660A1.txt
    • contended that if a forfeiture is warranted, it should be reduced, citing cases in which the Commission issued forfeitures in lesser amounts for unlicensed operation, or reduced forfeitures issued to licensees based on the short period of unlicensed operation. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Gateway's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3785A1.txt
    • the violator is a broadcast station licensee. In determining the appropriate amount, we consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $10,000 for violation of public file rules. As detailed above, it appears that M-H, on two different dates, did not make its public file available for inspection when requested to do so, contrary to section 73.3526(c) of the Commission's rules. Offsetting these apparent violations is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3819A1.txt
    • (EB 2000) (``WTTW''); Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcast Stations, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911 (1982), recon., 97 FCC 2d 255 (1984). See, e.g. In the Matter of Rego, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 16795, 16797 (EB 2001), citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970). See WTTW, supra. Id. See Note to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3819 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3819 8 9 : ; $ 4 g p W �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3851A1.txt
    • to expedite the painting. Finally, Barinowski states that it believed that the antenna structure was not in violation and that the painting, which occurred on October 4, 2002, prevented a future violation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Barinowski's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.pdf
    • 4920. See 2001 Response at 4. See Xavier, 5 FCC Rcd 4920. See id. See Public Notice, 7 FCC Rcd 827. 47 U.S.C. � 399b and 47 C.F.R. � 73.503. See 2001 Response. See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, 5 FCC Rcd 7212. 47 C.F.R. � 74.1231(g). See Note to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. � 399b. 47 C.F.R. � 73.503. 47 C.F.R. � 74.1231(g). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3864 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3864 W ` � ` g h x y g h x y k q W �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3887A1.txt
    • as justice may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that ABC, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, ABC, Inc. SHALL PAY
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3967A1.txt
    • NV ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0348 NAL/ Acct. No. 200132080012 FRN 0010014504 Facility ID No. 17239 ORDER Adopted: December 15, 2003 Released: December 17, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we impose a monetary forfeiture of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) on Donald W. Kaminski, Jr., licensee of Station KHWK(FM), Tonopah, Nevada, for his willful failure to respond to a written Commission inquiry in violation of section 73.1015 of the Commission's rules. II. BACKGROUND The Commission, by the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, acting pursuant to delegated authority, issued
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3969A1.txt
    • structure obstruction marking in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules. Tower Properties filed a response to the NAL on October 21, 2002, and supplemented its response on October 30, 2003. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303 (1999). In examining Tower Properties' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4021A1.txt
    • from its tower #1216312, and suggests that the agent could have observed the wrong tower. Lastly, Signal states that none of its towers had ever been cited for any violations of Commission rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Signal's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4024A1.txt
    • response to the NAL on October 24, 2002. Hunt's response essentially admits the violations. However, Hunt explains how it has corrected the violations, and seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Hunt's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4026A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4026 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4026 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 � � � � � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4032A1.txt
    • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4046A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4046 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4046 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � �@��� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4047A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4047 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4047 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4051A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4051 . Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4051 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4061A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4061 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-4061 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � h� h� h� h� �@��� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4062A1.txt
    • Project, Inc. (``Minority''), licensee of noncommercial educational television Station KMTP-TV, San Francisco, California, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). We further dismiss Minority's pending June 13, 2000, Request for Declaratory Ruling as moot. II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arose from allegations raised in a Media Bureau (``MB'') proceeding and referred to the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for resolution. In the MB proceeding, Minority submitted a Petition for Declaratory Ruling that sought Commission approval of numerous underwriting announcements that the station
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4064A1.txt
    • to HCI for violating Sections 73.49 ($7,000), 17.21 ($10,000), and 73.1745(a) ($4,000) of the Rules. HCI filed a response on October 30, 2002 in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining HCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4093A1.txt
    • 12, 2002, within 45 days of its removal. Lake Placid requests the NAL be cancelled under Section 11.35(b) because its EAS equipment was repaired or replaced within the 60 day period authorization in that provision. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Lake Placid's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4114A1.txt
    • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4118A1.txt
    • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. This would be the appropriate base forfeiture amount for a single importation or sale. In this case, Datel imported 15,000 units and sold 12,000 units. Given the number of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4118A1_Erratum.doc
    • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. This would be the appropriate base forfeiture amount for a single importation or sale. In this case, Datel imported 15,000 units and sold 12,000 units. Given the number of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-423A1.txt
    • Resource Utilization/Forecast (``NRUF'') Report that was due on September 15, 2000. ATX responded to the NAL and states that it filed the September 15, 2000 NRUF report. After considering ATX's response and reviewing the record, we find that we should cancel the proposed monetary forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the NAL issued to ATX Telecommunications Services, Ltd. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Scott Kellogg, Regulatory Affairs, ATX Telecommunications Services, Ltd., 225 West Ohio, Suite 200, Chicago, Illinois 60610. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau See ATX Telecommunications Services, Ltd.,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-424A1.txt
    • been issued and the recipient appears to continue to engage in the same rule violation, we are not inclined to rescind or adjust the forfeiture amount even where the recipient has filed for bankruptcy protection. Accordingly, we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that North American Telecommunications Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. For collection, the Commission will file a proof of claim at the appropriate time in North
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-441A1.txt
    • are not persuaded that a reduction of the forfeiture in this case based on AFA's history of compliance is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by American Family Association IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-463A1.txt
    • circumstances presented and to issue a forfeiture regardless of whether or not there is a bankruptcy. Thus, a carrier's bankruptcy will not preclude scrutiny of its compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules, and we will take enforcement action where appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the Notice of Apparent Liability issued to Net-Tel Corporation IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Trustee Wendel W. Webster, c/o Linda Correia, Esq., Webster, Fredrickson & Brackshaw, 1819 H Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-469A1.txt
    • that the lyrics of ``Your Revolution,'' measured by contemporary community standards, are not patently offensive and therefore not indecent. Accordingly, we rescind the NAL. 10. In light of our decision rescinding the NAL, we dismiss as moot Sarah Jones's informal request filed October 2, 2002. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's May 17, 2001 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to The KBOO Foundation, licensee of noncommercial Station KBOO-FM, is hereby RESCINDED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, the informal request, filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.41, by Sarah Jones on October
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-579A1.txt
    • reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted. We have reviewed the response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that AWS and Vanguard have justified a reduction of the proposed forfeiture penalty from $9,000 to $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc., FORFEIT to the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-621A1.txt
    • authorization, as described above. We have further determined that Arbros is apparently liable in the amount of $5000 for each of the violations of section 214 of the Act and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��0.111, 0.311, that Arbros Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $50,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 as
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-691A1.txt
    • a copy of the FAA's No Hazard determination issued on March 25, 2002, which specifically requires painting and lighting. In addition, Morgan argues that it did not act willfully and that it ``expeditiously'' corrected the violations. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Morgan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-769A1.txt
    • filed by Madison Broadcasting Group, Inc. ("Madison"), former licensee of station WLVA(AM) and former owner of five antenna structures in Lynchburg, Virginia (antenna structure registration numbers 1065920, 1065921, 1065922, 1065923, and 1065924) of the Forfeiture Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"), the Enforcement Bureau found Madison liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for willful violation of Sections 17.4(g) (failure to post its antenna structure registration numbers) and 17.50 (failure to maintain specified painting on its five antenna structures) of the Rules. II. BACKRGOUND 2. On February 28, 2002, a Commission agent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-770A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $21,000 to Ramh. Ramh has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Ramh Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1125, 73.1350, and 73.1400 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1560 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-780A1.txt
    • that the forfeiture was proposed in error and the NAL must be rescinded because the antenna structure was surrounded by a protective property fence, and therefore was not accessible to the general public. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Wilson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-825A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-825A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-825A2.txt
    • appropriate sanction. If such conduct is considered by the Bureau in determining an appropriate sanction, SBC will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of SBC's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. SBC's decision to enter into this Consent Decree is expressly contingent upon issuance of an Order that is consistent with this Consent Decree, and which adopts the Consent Decree without change, addition or modification. SBC waives any and all rights it may have to seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal or stay, or to otherwise
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-835A1.txt
    • of fact has not been raised with respect to RPVB's qualifications to remain a Commission licensee. We believe, however, that RPVB should be sanctioned for its false certifications, and that a monetary forfeiture should be imposed for the apparent violation of Section 73.1015 of the Commission's Rules. 36. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. RPVB's conduct in this regard was both ``willful'' and ``repeated'' within the meaning of Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-840A1.txt
    • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Radio 810. Radio 810 has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Radio 810 IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1215(a), 73.1350(d)(2), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-858A1.txt
    • operating the radio equipment at the request of the FCC agents. Finally, Mr. Hyppolite asserts that he is unable to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture and provides financial information in support of his request for reduction of the proposed forfeiture to $2,000. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Hyppolite's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-868A1.txt
    • records of the antenna structure's ownership, it promptly took steps to remedy the violation. Finally, East Tennessee submits that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules warrants reduction of the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining East Tennessee's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-869A1.txt
    • was ``nearing the end of it normal life and would need replacement soon.'' Finally, Needham asserts that, after being informed that the tower was noncompliant, he had it repainted between May 17 and 25, 2002. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Needham's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-870A1.txt
    • Chief of the Commission's former Mass Media Bureau (now Media Bureau), rescinded Tidewater's forfeiture for the violation. Applying the two downward adjustment criteria to this case (good faith and history of overall compliance), we find sufficient reason to cancel Tidewater's $10,000 forfeiture. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules, Tidewater's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED and the $10,000 forfeiture is IS CANCELLED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Tidewater Communications, Inc., 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 399, Chesapeake, Virginia, and to its counsel, Gary S. Smithwick,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1000A1.txt
    • WBJY(FM) Response at 1-2; 1982 Policy Statement, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911, � 26 (1982)(public broadcasters are prohibited from airing announcements promoting ``an entity or individual's goods or services where the broadcaster receives or reasonably anticipates the receipt of consideration from such individual or entity''). 1982 Policy Statement, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911-12, �� 26-29 (1982). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 (b)(4). For purposes of the proceeding initiated by this Memorandum Opinion and Order, AFA shall be the only party to this proceeding. Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1000 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1000 . / : = D E K P a b ` '' � � � � � � � � � � W K �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1002A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alsbrooks. Mr. Alsbrooks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules), Billy Thomas Alsbrooks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1003A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Upson. Mr. Upson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules), William Davon Upson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1016A1.txt
    • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Blountstown's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Blountstown Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for willfully violating Sections 11.35, 73.49 and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1017A1.txt
    • Atlanta, Georgia Field Office (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Brown Broadcasting. Brown Broadcasting has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Brown Broadcasting System, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1019A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1019 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1019 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1047A1.txt
    • 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent violation, we find that WXDJ should be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find the base amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1061A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1061 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1061 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1088A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Green. Mr. Green has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules), Jason T. Green IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1089A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Feldman. Mr. Feldman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules), Gary M. Feldman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1090A1.txt
    • is warranted on the basis of financial hardship. We have determined that Small Town's Motion should be granted and that its petition for reconsideration should be considered. We have examined Small Town's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Small Town willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1092A1.txt
    • that it has a history of overall compliance, that it had already planned to modify its organs to meet the Class B requirements before receiving the NAL, and that it stopped importing organs into the U.S. after receiving the NAL. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). In examining Johannus' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1105A1.txt
    • failure to register the antenna structure. On October 17, 2002, B&H responded to the NAL. In its response, B&H contends that it had timely completed and submitted the tower registration paperwork to the Commission. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining B&H's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1107A1.txt
    • conclude that Holladay did not willfully violate Section 17.50 of the Rules. Specifically, we find that the cables on the tower, although unpainted, did not compromise good visibility of the tower. Accordingly, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the proposed $10,000 forfeiture issued to Holladay Broadcasting Company, Inc., NAL/Acct. No. 200332700003, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Holladay Broadcasting Co., Inc. DBA/WKSM, 225 NW Hollywood Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32859 and its counsel, Bart
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1108A1.txt
    • Receipt Requested and received by the Commission on November 12, 2002. Piedmont also submits the tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001, of its principal in support of its claim of an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement). In examining Piedmont's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1142A1.txt
    • tower. Based on our review of Sedalia Smiles' response to the NAL and the overall record, we conclude that Sedalia Smiles did not willfully and/or repeatedly violate Section 17.51(b) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332560004, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Steven D. Semon and Jackie L. Semon dba Sedalia Smiles, 720 E. Fifth St., Sedalia, MO 65301. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1144A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1144 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1144 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 n � � � " n � � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-119A1.txt
    • to register the antenna structure was not a willful. In addition, Meade asserts that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount at this time but is willing to enter into a payment plan. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Meade's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-120A1.txt
    • transmitter was incorrectly installed on the wrong frequency and that this problem has been corrected. Citywide seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture and asserts that it has a history of compliance. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Citywide's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1219A1.txt
    • without funding depreciation. As its revenues decline and deficits continue, Commonwealth states that it also must fund the digital conversion of its stations. For these reasons, Commonwealth requests that the $10,000 forfeiture imposed against it be cancelled. Discussion. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules,12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement). As disclosed in the STA application, Commonwealth offered no explanation and presented no mitigating factors for its rule violation. Accordingly, the imposition of the baseline forfeiture was consistent with
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-121A1.txt
    • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Media's January 13, 2003, petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's Forfeiture Order issued on December 5, 2002, IS DISMISSED as untimely and the issuance of the $6,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1242A1.txt
    • response on June 9, 2003. In its response, Petracom does not dispute the NAL findings. However, as discussed below, Petracom seeks cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture amount based upon its remedial efforts, history of compliance, and inability to pay. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Petracom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1243A1.txt
    • not dispute the NAL findings. Nevertheless, as detailed below, Clear Channel seeks cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, based on the fact that the Buffalo Office allegedly erred in inspecting the antenna structure, and that Clear Channel instituted prompt remedial action. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Clear Channel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1256A1.txt
    • inspected by the New York Office agents. New Eastern requested that if the Commission did not cancel the forfeiture, to consider reducing it. New Eastern provided profit and loss statements for 1999, 2000, and 2001. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining New Eastern's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1257A1.txt
    • be cancelled or substantially reduced. In support thereof, Crews submitted its tax returns from the years 2001, 2000 and 1999 and stated that it had never been cited for any violation of Commission rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crews response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1272A1.txt
    • the Needham's inability to pay claim and supporting documentation, we conclude that the assessed $10,000 forfeiture would pose a financial hardship. We therefore conclude that cancellation of the forfeiture is warranted based on the Needham's inability to pay. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 405, 503(b)(2)(d) and 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules, the Needham's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to William L. and Lucille Needham, 1090 Bluff Drive, Osage Beach, Missouri 65065. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1273A1.txt
    • public records confirm, that Accessory was dissolved on September 19, 2003, and its status was ``inactive.'' Given that the company has been dissolved, and that neither it nor its principals holds Commission authorizations, we believe that cancellation of the $20,000 Forfeiture Order is appropriate. Consistent with the discretion accorded to us under 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, as well as recent precedent, we therefore are canceling the $20,000 forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 405 and 504(b) of the Act and Sections 1.106 and 1.80(i) of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Accessory Connection, Inc. of the Bureau's February 6, 2003 Forfeiture Order for NAL/Acct. No. 200232700019 IS GRANTED
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1286A1.txt
    • operation such as the circumstances, the nature and history of prior offenses, his degree of culpability as well as his inability to pay. He submitted no documentation substantiating an inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Dorcely's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1290A1.txt
    • site. On October 30, 2003, the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Pacifica. Pacifica has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Pacifica Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Section 73.1690 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1292A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1292 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1292 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 5 6 7 < s v ; < -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1296A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1296 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1296 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 . / 0 K Z ^ f . / -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1298A1.txt
    • Additionally, MRJ seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its unique role in its community, its commitment to continued remedial action and remedial actions taken so far and its claimed inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining MRJ's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1304A1.txt
    • the fact that the record contains evidence only of limited routing failures in one state, we find that CenturyTel is apparently liable in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, CenturyTel, Inc., CenturyTel of Washington, Inc., CenturyTel of Cowiche, Inc., and CenturyTel of Inter Island, Inc. are hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Commission orders and section 52.26(a) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1306A1.txt
    • maintained a nearly complete public file at 541 S. Main Street. In addition, Metropolitan argues that, if a forfeiture is imposed, the amount should be reduced because of the ``inconsequentiality'' of the offense. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Metropolitan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1332A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1332 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1332 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1333A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1333 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1333 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ; < = X g k s ; < -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1350A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1350 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1350 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h � � h ���������������ľ��������������������`ľ���刁z� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1351A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1351 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1351 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 $ % J b c d l n r s u v & 5 J c d v w � � v { � � � - � �@��� � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1383A1.txt
    • the light was out and that it failed to notify the FAA of the outage. Wings' response included a recitation of its unsuccessful repair efforts as justification for its request for forfeiture cancellation. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Wings' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1389A1.txt
    • correction of the violations and its inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. Pilgrim filed a supplementary response on February 20, 2003, containing copies of its 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Pilgrim's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1390A1.txt
    • correction of the violations and its inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. Pilgrim filed a supplementary response on February 20, 2003, containing copies of its 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Pilgrim's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1392A1.txt
    • states that the station engineer does not work there full time and claims that the station is in the process of completing installation of another ground system and is addressing interference and transmitter problems. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Melodynamic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1401A1.txt
    • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Louis. Mr. Louis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules), Mr. Rony Richard Louis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1402A1.txt
    • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to L.A.C.A. L.A.C.A. has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules), L.A.C.A., State of New York, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1403A1.txt
    • have been trained to ensure that the EAS tests are properly logged. Additionally, Fayette County Broadcasting seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its prompt remedial action and its claimed inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Fayette County Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1406A1.txt
    • received MBHD's response to the NAL. In its response, MBHD did not dispute the NAL's findings, but nevertheless sought cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount based on its remedial efforts and its inability to pay. Discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1411A1.txt
    • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office (``Philadelphia Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Best Wok. Best Wok has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Best Wok IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1442A1.txt
    • history of prior offenses; and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. To support his inability to pay claim, Mr. Massett submitted copies of his 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Massett's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1447A1.txt
    • likely to qualify for the service or support. We find Pend Oreille apparently liable for $25,000. We also admonish the company for failing to respond in a timely and thorough manner to a Commission directive. 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 that Pend Oreille Telephone Company IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 214(e)(1)(B) and sections 54.405(b) and 54.411(d) of the Commission's rules 47 C.F.R �� 54.405(b), 54.411(d) as
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1452A1.txt
    • not harmed and that it promptly corrected the violation. BLCI also claims that it is financially unable to pay the forfeiture and that it has a history of compliance with Commission rules and regulations. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining BLCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1453A1.txt
    • and 2002. Accordingly, no reduction of the monetary forfeiture is warranted. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Tri-County's Petition for Reconsideration, filed June 12, 2003, IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1471A1.txt
    • may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that New Northwest Broadcasters, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, New
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1533A1.txt
    • a ``controlled environment'' and implemented a ``common sense'' approach to RFR compliance which is consistent with OET Bulletin 65; and that, if it did violate Section 1.1310 of the Rules, the appropriate sanction is admonishment. Discussion The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Americom's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1576A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1576 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1576 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 Q T -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1577A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1577 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1577 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � - � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1578A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1578 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1578 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - V o p q w - " � � � � � h{ h{ h{ h{ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1580A1.txt
    • forfeiture citing the immediate measures it took to correct the violations noted in the NAL, as well as an inability to pay any forfeiture at all. The response is accompanied by one partial-year financial statement. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Greenwood's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1590A1.txt
    • response, Ad-Venture did not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, Ad-Venture sought a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay, its unblemished history of compliance, and its prompt remedial efforts. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1600A1.txt
    • December 3, 2002 were inconsistent with UTI's subsequent inspection of the antenna structure. PCI notes that it promptly contacted the FAA of this outage. Accordingly, PCI asserts that the violations were not ``willful.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1610A1.txt
    • the findings of the NAL, that it willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Rather, the licensee seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Floyd County Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1619A1.txt
    • to the Enforcement Bureau within 30 days of the release of this Order confirming that it has repaired the lighting outage. Vector's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Vector. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Vector Communications, Inc. d/b/a WCFI, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1620A1.txt
    • (``Norfolk Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to WBLB. WBLB has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, WBLB, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for repeatedly violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1621A1.txt
    • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Parkway. Parkway has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules), Parkway Luxury Ride, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1629A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1629 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1629 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 j w -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1631A1.txt
    • no prior record of violation with the Commission. Finally, the licensee claimed it is a small station and submitted tax returns for the years 1999-2002, in support of its inability to pay claim. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Fun Media Group's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1633A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1633 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1633 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 k l m - � l � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1670A1.txt
    • the records are now complete, that only a ``handful'' of files were missing, and that no actual harm was done because no one requested to view the public inspection file during the time in question. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). In examining TWEAN's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the alleged violation and, with respect to the violator, the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1687A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1687 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1687 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 a � � � a q ... � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1691A1.txt
    • the EAS equipment for Station KCAF(AM) was being monitored and tested from its Dallas studio. Finally, Renaissance Radio states that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, as it is a debtor in possession. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Renaissance Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1693A1.txt
    • Clay's report must be submitted in the form of a sworn declaration. If Clay fails to submit such a report indicating that he has ceased operation, we will consider further appropriate enforcement action, including potential revocation of his amateur radio license. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mark A. Clay IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant Section 308(b) of the Act, Mr. Clay must submit the report described in Paragraph 3, above, within 30 days from the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1710A1.txt
    • ``due to an oversight during the transfer of property, the registered owner of the tower was not changed at closing.'' However, Pamal sought a reduction of the forfeiture amount based upon its history of overall compliance. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1714A1.txt
    • the overall record, we conclude that, because the tower was not required to be registered by Georgia Transmission Corp., Georgia Transmission did not willfully and/or repeatedly violate Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332480009, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Georgia Transmission Corp., 2100 E. Exchange Place, Tucker, Georgia 30084. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Notice
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1720A1.txt
    • Finally, NYRS argues that its violation is not as egregious as unlicensed ``pirate'' operation, that its unauthorized operation did not cause any harmful interference and that it has a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining NYRS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1732A1.txt
    • correct equipment to take the measurements. In addition, Radio 810 argues that the Forfeiture Order is procedurally defective because it was mailed to the company's former address and was addressed to Radio 810's previous corporate name. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Radio 810's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1750A1.txt
    • located had numerous openings with no fencing, affording unrestricted access to the tower. In addition, there was no fence at the base of the tower. The tower had radio frequency potential at the base. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Forrester's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1751A1.txt
    • these measurements, the agent calculated the system's cumulative leakage index (``CLI'') at a value of 68.7, exceeding the allowed cumulative signal leakage performance criteria of 64, in violation of Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining STC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1752A1.txt
    • to the NAL, we conclude that, contrary to the contemporaneous statements made by WGUL-FM employees at the time of the inspection, WGUL-FM is not the owner of antenna structure #1027884. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed against WGUL-FM. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432700012, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to WGUL-FM, Inc., 35048 US Highway 19, North, Palm Harbor, FL 34684 and James A. Koerner, Counsel for WGUL-FM, Inc., 5809 Nicholson
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1760A1.txt
    • Phillips did not dispute the NAL's findings regarding power excesses and EAS deficiencies, but claimed that they were due to unusual circumstances and further claimed that it was unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amounts. Discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.J. Phillips' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the violations' nature, circumstances, extent and gravity, and the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1770A1.txt
    • notes that it hired a firm to erect interior fencing around the base of each tower. Finally, it argues the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its overall history of compliance with the Rules. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Metro Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1810A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1811A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1812A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1813A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1814A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1815A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1816A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1817A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1818A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1828A1.txt
    • a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that station WZRH(AM) served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant the license renewal application below. Conclusion/Actions. For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to Section 503 (b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 U.S.C. Sections 0.283 and 1.80, Zybek is hereby advised of his apparent liability for a forfeiture of $1,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Zybek SHALL PAY to the United States the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1847A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1847 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1847 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1868A1.txt
    • Mega's regular inspection of the tower and the fact that the problem occurred shortly after an inspection by Mega, we conclude that Mega did not willfully violate Section 73.49 of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332260003, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Mega Communications of New Britain, Licensee, L.L.C., 8121 Georgia Avenue, 10th floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 and to its
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2003A1.txt
    • forfeiture, citing an inability to pay. In support, Pilgrim described losses from a prior burglary and submitted its tax returns from 1998-2001. Pilgrim also described remedial measures undertaken as further justification for forfeiture cancellation. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Pilgrim's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2005A1.txt
    • and that the size of the forfeiture is disproportionate to the size of station. The response is accompanied by an exhibit entitled ``Deposit Detail'' along with a copy of an arbitration decision concerning Meeker. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Meeker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2011A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2011 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2011 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ; A z { | }  � � - - � � � � � � � � � ���������������������缴�����tm''�㐌�|u|u|�|�|� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2013A1.txt
    • the proposed forfeiture based the fact that it has a history pf compliance with the Commission's rules. The response is accompanied by a copy of its October 31, 2002 response to the NOV. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Simmons' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2020A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2020 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2020 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 p q � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2021A1.txt
    • April 22, 2003. In his response, Mr. DeNaples conceded that he operated on frequency 154.515 MHz, but argued that he applied for and was issued a license for that frequency more than thirty years ago. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Dominic DeNaples' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2023A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2023 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2023 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 �@��� �@��� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2040A1.txt
    • an order for a new inner base fence it placed almost a week before the agents' inspection. Finally, PCI claims it is unable to pay the $7,000 forfeiture and submitted supporting financial documentation. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2041A1.txt
    • Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Mayo. Mr. Mayo has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Stanley Mark Mayo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2042A1.txt
    • Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $11,000 to Mr. Granda. Mr. Granda has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Daniel Granda IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $11,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 308(b) and 333 of the Act and Sections 97.101(b) and 97.101(d) of the Rules . 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2043A1.txt
    • Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to Sunbelt. Sunbelt has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Sunbelt Television, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for repeatedly violating Section 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2082A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2082 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2082 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 K L M Q R � � Q R � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2159A1.txt
    • promptly to come into compliance with the Commission's rules. Finally, FNX claims that it has experienced net operating losses at station WPHX(AM) and that imposition of the proposed forfeiture will not serve the public interest. Discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining FNX's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2160A1.txt
    • to come into compliance with the Commission's rules. Finally, FNX claims that it has experienced substantial net operating losses at station WPHX-FM and that imposition of the proposed forfeiture will not serve the public interest. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining FNX's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2162A1.txt
    • and inconsistent with previous actions. Finally, Chladek argues that it has never been cited for an infraction of the Rules and this factor should have been taken into account with the issuance of the NAL. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Chladek's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2188A1.txt
    • petition, East Tennessee again avers its good faith belief that the May 11 notification, assignment of license application and subsequently filed ownership report adequately alerted the Commission to the change in ownership of the antenna structure. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining East Tennessee's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2259A1.txt
    • accordance with the U.S.-Mexico treaty and that the Mexican station was causing harmful interference to licensed U.S. broadcast stations. Accordingly, based upon the record before us, we find that PSN supplied cross-border programming to Station XEKTT in apparent willful and repeated violation of the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) authorization. Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of a Commission issued permit, license or other authorization shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The forfeiture amount for entities other than broadcast licensees or permittees, cable television operators and common carriers may not exceed $11,000 for each violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2260A1.txt
    • an inability to pay the forfeiture. Barnacle, however, submitted only a Balance Sheet, Mortgage Note and Income Statement for 2002 created by the President of Barnacle as documentation in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Barnacle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2264A1.txt
    • it is a small business entity, in support of its request that the forfeiture be reduced, without providing any financial documentation. It is well established that reliance on small business status alone without substantiation of the inability to pay claim is insufficient. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacifica Foundation, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for its willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.61(a)(1)(i), 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2265A1.txt
    • system monitors the lights and sends an alarm using cell radio technology. Additionally, Business Cell states that if an alarm system failed to check in once every 24 hours it would be notified. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Business Cell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2316A1.txt
    • the FAA two years to conduct a new aeronautical study and that it has been waiting on a response from the Commission to its July 20, 1999 filing of an antenna structure registration application. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Clamor's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2330A1.txt
    • through its General Counsel, Mr. Vaughn, in his letter of November 21, 2003. Out of nine categories of information and documents the Enforcement Bureau's letter dated November 13, 2003 directed AFA to provide, Mr. Vaughn responded to two while offering no explanation for not responding to the other categories. C. Proposed Action 13. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. The Forfeiture Policy Statement sets forth a
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2334A1.txt
    • financial hardship claim, Servisair submits financial documentation for 2000 and 2001. Servisair also noted that neither itself, its parent company nor its sister companies have previously been found in violation of Commission rules or regulations. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Servisair's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2338A1.txt
    • its consulting engineer to submit its STL application and that it would receive a license in due course. Arnold admitted that it ``did not think about the matter again'' until the Denver Office agent's inspection. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Arnold's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2343A1.txt
    • that he did not receive any financial benefit from the operation of the station; that the ``owner and operator'' of the station is ``free of charge''; and that he cannot pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Desinor's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2346A1.txt
    • games against Arizona State and Penn State. Finally, Johnson argues the forfeiture should be reduced or canceled because it does not have a prior history of violations and is unable to pay the proposed amount. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Johnson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-236A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-236 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-236 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 : ; 9 : ; � � 9; � h- -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2387A1.txt
    • Rules. Finally, Cornell states the forfeiture would constitute an extreme financial hardship, given the school's overall financial condition and the fact that the proposed forfeiture exceeds the station's annual budget for the 2003-2004 school year. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Cornell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2388A1.txt
    • hospital stays and interfered with Mr. Andrews' ability to oversee the operations and maintenance of the tower. Finally, Andrews Tower states that the proposed forfeiture is its first fine or violation from the Commission III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Andrews Tower's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2391A1.txt
    • the Arkansas Broadcasters Association and the author of the EAS guidelines for Arkansas Broadcasters. Finally, Pearson requests relief from the forfeiture due to inability to pay, and provides financial information in support of its request. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Pearson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-240A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-240 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-240 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2441A1.txt
    • years. Because Casey has presented financial information only with respect to this station and not his company overall, and has not provided any supporting documentation, we are not in a position to make a downward adjustment based on inability to pay. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Casey Network, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2459A1.txt
    • and requests cancellation of the forfeiture, implying that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture. Finally, it supplements its response stating that it will paint the tower on or about April 15, 2003. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Wanda Doonan Trust's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2466A1.txt
    • the proposed monetary forfeiture. CB contends that it attempted to register WBEJ's antenna structure but was not successful until February 14, 2003, and that its failure to timely register WPEJ's antenna structure was not willful. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining CB's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2470A1.txt
    • so reducing the proposed forfeiture, we admonish Sauer for his deliberate, willful and repeated violations of the Part 97 of the Rules governing amateur radio operations, and caution Sauer that further violations may result in additional enforcement measures, including revocation of his license. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Ronald E. Sauer IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four hundred dollars ($400) for its deliberate, willful and repeated violations of Sections 97.101(d), 97.113(a)(4) and 97.119(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2473A1.txt
    • Response denying that it violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules and disputing the fencing violation. Pittman also seeks a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount based on a past history of compliance and financial hardship. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Pittman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2479A1.txt
    • forfeiture in the amount of $17,000 to Williams. Williams does not contest the subject violations. Williams filed a response to the NAL on May 16, 2003, and supplemented his response on July 21 and 23, 2004. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-247A1.txt
    • RJM filed a response on August 1, 2003. In its response, RJM does not challenge the findings of the NAL. Rather, RJM seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining RJM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2482A1.txt
    • loss. Mr. Jackson further characterized his operation of the station as a ``public service,'' and claimed that he never received financial gain from its operation as additional justification for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Donald Jackson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2486A1.txt
    • from unusual circumstances and was not willful. Additionally, Entravision claims that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because of its ``good faith efforts to bring the station into compliance'' and history of overall compliance. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Entravision's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2488A1.txt
    • never received the November 27, 2002 Warning Letter and immediately shut down the operation upon notice of violation, and his inability to pay. He submitted no documentation substantiating an inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) ``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Selvanto's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2489A1.txt
    • law because such alternatives are too costly and time-consuming. Moreover, Mr. Simon alleges that the Commission's licensing rules violate the First Amendment and that the Commission seized equipment in Mr. Simon's home pursuant to an illegal and unlawful search and seizure. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Simon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2494A1.txt
    • response on May 20, 2003. In its response, FTP does not contest the violation. FTP seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its post-inspection mitigation efforts, inability to pay, and its history of overall compliance. discussion 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining FTP's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2497A1.txt
    • 30, 2003 requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, alleging that the agents' inspection of the antenna structure site was improper, and stating that it instituted prompt remedial action to correct the noted violations. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Capstar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-24A1.txt
    • to it, by a communications company to solve a problem Acapulco was having with background noise from drivers. Finally, Acapulco states that it has programmed its equipment to operate only on its licensed frequency. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Acapulco's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2515A1.txt
    • are ``a small, independent broadcaster'' and that the Commission ``should not discourage companies like 4M whose successful efforts to save troubled AM stations and bring new programming choices to listeners have served the public interest.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining the 4M companies' response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2517A1.txt
    • to justify rescinding the forfeiture. And, as noted above, this is not the first Infinity violation of our telephone broadcast rule. We therefore reject Infinity's arguments that imposing a forfeiture in this instance would constitute impermissible disparate treatment. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Infinity Radio Operations, Inc., shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2518A1.txt
    • 1232899. Based on our review of Gulf Stream's response to the NAL, including its good faith efforts to comply prior to being informed of the FCC inspection and its history of overall compliance, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700025, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail to Gulf Stream Natural Gas System, Attention, P. Martin Teague, Associate General Counsel, 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Houston, TX 77612 and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2530A1.txt
    • of harmful interference caused by the Model TM60's non-compliance mitigate the failure of the device to comply with Commission Rules. Further, while we commend IKUSI's commitment to comply with the Commission's rules in the future, such post-remedial measure does not lessen, mitigate, or excuse IKUSI's violations. Indeed, corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission Rules is expected. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for importing and marketing non-compliant equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that the base forfeiture amounts shall be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2536A1.txt
    • record, which showed that Tennessee Gas had registered its tower and installed strobe lights, we conclude that Tennessee Gas did not willfully and repeatedly violate Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332280007, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 1001 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Notice
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2538A1.txt
    • with a copy of the NOV attached. The Columbia Office received a postal receipt proving delivery of the letter on January 25, 2003, but did not receive a reply to the January 17 letter. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining JMK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2539A1.txt
    • evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that station WXAF(FM) served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant Maranatha's license renewal application below. Conclusion/Actions. For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $6,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-253A1.txt
    • proposed forfeiture, claiming that that it did not willfully violate the antenna fencing requirements of Section 73.49, that it had years of broadcasting experience, and that it was a ``small daytime radio station operating out of a very humble mobile home.'' discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining WCVC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2540A1.txt
    • not evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that station WSMX(AM) served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant GMI's license renewal application below. Conclusion/Actions. For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Gospel Media, Inc., is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $6,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2543A1.txt
    • 3 (rel. March 22, 1985) (Field Operations Bureau properly denied respondent the name of complainants who had written letter to assist Commission in ``effecting its duty to maintain and assure the proper use of the electromagnetic spectrum,'' despite respondent's desire to pursue civil remedies for alleged defamatory qualities of letter). See NAL Response at 3- 4 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4)). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2543 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2543 & U � '' (R) � � � � ,� � � � h% h�n h�n h�n h�n h�n h�n h{ � F � �@ � �@ �@ �@ � �@ �@ �@ � �@ � �� � � �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2553A1.txt
    • not the requisite two sources. On March 31, 2003, the San Diego Office issued a NAL for $15,000 to Playa del Sol for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35, 11.61, and 73.1125 of the Rules. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Playa del Sol's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2554A1.txt
    • support of his inability to pay contention. We have reviewed the financial information submitted by Mr. Neely and find that this information does not provide a basis for cancellation. Indeed, the forfeiture is a very small percentage of Rejoice, Inc.'s gross revenues. 4`. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Frank Neely IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for his repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2596A1.txt
    • letter. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station(s) has permanently discontinued operations as described under 22.317, and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. For assistance in registering with CORES and associating your call sign with the FRN, call 717-338-2888 or 888-CALLFCC (888-225-5322) and select option 2. For additional information on this license audit contact Denise Walter of the Bureau's Mobility Division at 202-418-0620 or denise.walter@fcc.gov. This spectrum audit will be the third audit conducted by the Bureau. See Wireless
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2853A1.txt
    • to pay. Therefore, we again decline to cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture on the basis of inability to pay. We have considered the forfeiture amount and we have examined Mr. O'Quinn's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Mr. O'Quinn willfully violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2854A1.txt
    • for the antenna structure, that it repainted the tower promptly after the Commission notice and before the NAL was issued, and that its failure to repaint the tower before Commission notice was not willful. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Leon's Radio's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2864A1.txt
    • any change in the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $10,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2874A1.txt
    • supporting documentation, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture is warranted based on the company's inability to pay. While we cancel the forfeiture, we admonish Rainbow for its repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars ($8,000.00) for apparent repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rainbow Honolulu IS ADMONISHED for its repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by shall
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2877A1.txt
    • of the towers and an engineering firm to submit the necessary studies to the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'') to obtain a no hazard determination. Williams asserts it will immediately register the three towers after it receives an FAA no hazard determination. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Williams's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2879A1.txt
    • Louis Mobile's inability to pay. We do find, however that St. Louis Mobile should be admonished for its repeated violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. We have examined St. Louis Mobile's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that St. Louis Mobile's petition for reconsideration should be granted, the monetary forfeiture against St. Louis Mobile should be cancelled and St. Louis Mobile should be admonished for its repeated violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2881A1.txt
    • agree that the violation was willful or repeated. Finally, Palmetto discusses its poor financial situation and provides copies of its 2000, 2001, and 2002 tax returns, presumably to demonstrate its inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Palmetto's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2886A1.txt
    • by approximately October 31, 2003. Cell Page still has not submitted its tax returns. Without the appropriate financial documentation, we can not consider Cell Page's claim of inability to pay; therefore, we deny its request for reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Cell Page IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for its willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2887A1.txt
    • license application withdrawal will be processed by WTB concurrently with this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Kamm's petition for reconsideration of the June 6, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) assessed in the Forfeiture Order issued to Scott E. Kamm IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Scott E. Kamm at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2888A1.txt
    • 12, 2003 response to the NAL, including its statement that it is not the operator of the unlicensed radio transmitter. Based on our review of its response and the record before us, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the April 23, 2003 NAL issued to Hip Hop City Corp. IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Hip Hop City, 1236 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11216. FEDERAL
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2890A1.txt
    • and that ``the Norfolk Office improperly used ESI's good faith and voluntary disclosures of prior improper programming by a service representative as a basis to refuse rather than allow any reduction of the base forfeiture.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining ESI's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2890A1_Erratum.doc
    • and that ``the Norfolk Office improperly used ESI's good faith and voluntary disclosures of prior improper programming by a service representative as a basis to refuse rather than allow any reduction of the base forfeiture.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining ESI's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2891A1.txt
    • of the proposed monetary forfeiture. WFNO argues that it has a history of overall compliance, made voluntary disclosures, made good faith efforts to come into compliance and was cooperative during and after the inspection. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining WFNO's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2903A1.txt
    • engineer; 3) WSJM was only monitoring one EAS source because an antenna from one of its EAS monitors had become dislodged; and 4) the station has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining WSJM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2904A1.txt
    • August 21, 2003. Mr. Simon admits that his vehicle was parked in the driveway of the residence on that date, but claims that his wife and ``her friend'' were using his vehicle that day. III. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Simon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2904A1_Erratum.doc
    • August 21, 2003. Mr. Simon admits that his vehicle was parked in the driveway of the residence on that date, but claims that his wife and ``her friend'' were using his vehicle that day. III. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Simon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2910A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2910 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2910 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � �@��� �@��� �@��� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2971A1.txt
    • findings. Ramsey nevertheless sought cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture based upon its good faith efforts to comply with the subject registration requirements, after the Dallas Office notified Ramsey of the lack of registration. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2981A1.txt
    • just returned home from a trip and received the Bureau's letter. He stated that he would file his written response to the letter the next week. More than three months later, however, Mr. Goodman still has not responded or provided the information or documents required by the Bureau's letter of inquiry. DISCUSSION Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. In order to impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2984A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2984 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-2984 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ` k x � ` �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2989A1.txt
    • Media engaged a contractor to coordinate reports and register the antenna structure more than a year prior to the Commission's on-site inspection. Under the circumstances, we believe a reduction of the $3,000 base forfeiture for that violation to $1,000 is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 503(a) and (b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Southern Media Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nine thousand dollars ($9,000) for its willful violation of the EAS and antenna registration requirements set forth in Sections 17.4(a) and 11.35(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2992A1.txt
    • May 31, 2003, Mr. Taylor filed with the Commission an application for a change in ownership of the subject antenna structure, which was granted that same day. Mr. Taylor is no longer a Commission licensee. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and in accordance with the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the forfeiture amount of $10,000 is warranted. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $10,000 forfeiture issued to Robert B. Taylor IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3017A1.txt
    • MHz, and 106.9 MHz. Global characterized its operation on the additional channels as an experiment intended to ``explore the role of Part 15'' and ``provide the FCC with reliable data'' as further justification for cancellation. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Global's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3019A1.txt
    • was upwardly adjusted from $4,000 to $8,000. On March 20, 2003, Union filed a Response seeking a decrease in the forfeiture amount, alleging that it has taken remedial actions to comply with the referenced Rules. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Union's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3019A1_Erratum.doc
    • was upwardly adjusted from $4,000 to $8,000. On March 20, 2003, Union filed a Response seeking a decrease in the forfeiture amount, alleging that it has taken remedial actions to comply with the referenced Rules. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Union's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3022A1.txt
    • Additionally, EICB requests cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture on the basis of financial hardship and submits copies of its 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 federal income tax returns in support of its request. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining EICB's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3025A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3025 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3025 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 c d e i j �@��� �@��� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3026A1.txt
    • ) FCC Account ID No. 0441724048 For C Block Facilities in the ) FRN No. 0007043409 710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2004 Released: September 22, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Star Wireless, LLC (``Star'') engaged in collusive conduct during a Commission-conducted auction in 2002, in willful and repeated violation of section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules. Based on the information before us, we conclude that Star is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). II. BACKGROUND This
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3027A1.txt
    • FCC Account ID No. 0442010372 ) FRN No. 0002706190 For C Block Facilities in the ) 710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2004 Released: September 22, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Northeast Communications of Wisconsin, Inc. (``Northeast'') engaged in collusive conduct during a Commission-conducted auction in 2002, in willful violation of section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules. Based on the information before us, we conclude that Northeast is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). II. BACKGROUND This
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3027A1_Erratum.doc
    • FCC Account ID No. 0442010372 ) FRN No. 0002706190 For C Block Facilities in the ) 710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2004 Released: September 22, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Northeast Communications of Wisconsin, Inc. (``Northeast'') engaged in collusive conduct during a Commission-conducted auction in 2002, in willful violation of section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules. Based on the information before us, we conclude that Northeast is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). II. BACKGROUND This
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3042A1.txt
    • Radio X's inability to pay claim was denied. The Order concluded that Radio X willfully violated Sections 17.50 and 73.3526(b) of the Rules and that neither cancellation nor reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture was warranted. Discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Radio X's Petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3050A1.txt
    • letter. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station(s) has permanently discontinued operations as described under 22.317, and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. or contact Denise Walter of the Bureau's Mobility Division at 202-418-0620 or denise.walter@fcc.gov. See Public Notice, ``Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces An Audit Of The Operational Status Of Stations Authorized In The Paging And Radiotelephone Service (Part 22) And Stations Operating On 929-930 MHz Private Carrier Paging Exclusive Channels (Part 90),'' DA No. 04-2596 (rel. August 24,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3106A1.txt
    • Mercury sought a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith and prompt remedial efforts, the nature and circumstances of the violations, and its record of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mercury's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3107A1.txt
    • receive the equipment for the system until March 12, 2003. Mediacom stated that the equipment was installed by March 17, 2003, and Mediacom promptly repaired the outage after learning about it from the field inspector. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mediacom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3108A1.txt
    • KPLN are specifically referenced - can generate intermodulation interference within some receivers. This interference would theoretically fall on 89.3 MHz, first-adjacent channel to KPBS-FM. An increase in KPBS-FM's signal strength at Mt. Soledad, SDSU suggests, would help overcome any such interference. However, SDSU have provided no evidence that any adverse RITOIE effects exist, even at the present KPBS-FM ERP of 1.80 kW. Accordingly, a waiver on this basis is unwarranted. PTFP Funding. SDSU received a grant of $216,168 in federal funds from PTFP in 1997 to implement the Mt. Soledad operation authorized in construction permit BPED-19970211IA. SDSU is in jeopardy of losing this funding if it cannot implement improvements in KPBS-FM's service. However, economic matters are not considered when waivers of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3149A1.txt
    • the fence was damaged after February 7, 2004 such damage was most likely the result of vandalism. Finally, he argues the forfeiture should be reduced based on the station's long-time record of compliance with the Rules and the station's financial situation. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Delta's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3150A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $18,000 to TPN. TPN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, The Paradise Network of North Carolina, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3153A1.txt
    • the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled in light of its overall history of compliance with the Rules. Accordingly we reduce the forfeiture amount to $12,000. ordering clauses twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.47(a), 17.48(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3154A1.txt
    • a non-working number for the individual to contact him. Mr. Pierre provided no information as to the identity, whereabouts or telephone number for ``Jean Louis'' and stated merely that he was refuting the allegations and wanted the matter ``put to rest.'' discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Pierre's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3157A1.txt
    • In its response, Butterfield seeks cancellation of the forfeiture because it was ``in the process of dealing with the problem and it has since been resolved,'' and because it is unable to pay the forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). In examining Butterfield's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the alleged violation and, with respect to the violator, the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3158A1.txt
    • ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Section 1.106 of the Rules, FBS Wireless Corporation's petition for reconsideration, filed November 21, 2003, IS DENIED and the issuance of the $20,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3183A1.txt
    • amateur radio bands given his valid amateur license; and that any possible suspension of his license is also pending a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, making the NAL moot until the suspension occurs. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Gerritsen's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3189A1.txt
    • between November 2002 and November 2003 and the model EPIA-CL CPU board between August/September 2003 and November 2003. Therefore, although we find that some of VIA's apparent violations occurred outside the one-year statute of limitations, we propose forfeitures here only for the violations which occurred within the last year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. In this case, VIA imported and marketed two unauthorized models of CPU boards. We find that a forfeiture amount of $7,000 is warranted for each unauthorized model. Accordingly, we are proposing
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-318A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-318 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-xxxx FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 J - � + 1 J P q w � � � � � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3199A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Konarz. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3205A1.txt
    • would be owed by Station WB0TPF, argues that Station WB0TPF should not be assessed a fine for putting up an antenna that benefits the community, and asks that the forfeiture be cancelled. Northern states that it will register the tower. discussion The NAL assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Northern's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3239A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3239 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3239 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � �@��� �@��� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3240A1.txt
    • submitted a response to the NAL. In that response, Capital Media admits that its EAS receiver did not receive the tests in question, but urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Capital Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3244A1.txt
    • this claim because, in fact, the Enforcement Bureau has found various Saga affiliates in violation of the Commission's rules in numerous cases in the past four years. We therefore decline to reduce the forfeiture amount on these grounds. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Saga Communications of New England, LLC, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of $4,000 for willfully violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3245A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3245 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3245 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 0 1 2 M \ ` h 0 1 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3246A1.txt
    • to pay. Based on our review of the financial information provided by Business Cell, we conclude that an eight thousand dollar ($8,000) forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on the licensee. Therefore, we reduce the forfeiture to one thousand dollars ($1,000). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules, Business Cell's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED, and the $8,000 forfeiture is reduced to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for Business Cell's willful and repeated violation of Section 17.51(b) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3248A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3248 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3248 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 �@��� �@��� �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3249A1.txt
    • on September 20, 2004. In its response, VPM did not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, VPM sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inadvertence, remedial efforts, inability to pay, and history of compliance. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3250A1.txt
    • ``in a manner reasonably designed to reach those who qualify'' for those services. However, as discussed above, Pend Oreille has shown mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty to $20,000. 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i) and 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) that Pend Oreille shall forfeit to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 214(e)(1)(B), and Sections 54.405(b) and 54.411(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 54.405(b), 54.411(d) as discussed in the paragraphs above. 14.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3254A1.txt
    • have removed his CB radio antenna. Mr. Spiry also asserts that he was unaware that the amount of the forfeiture could be so high, and that he is unable to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Spiry's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3258A1.txt
    • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules. However, we think that a substantial proposed forfeiture for this violation is warranted. Violation of the E911 rules is extremely serious because these rules are intended to promote safety of life. Further, the Phase I requirements set forth in Section 20.18(d) have
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3263A1.txt
    • met. Lastly, Crown states that during the period between the antenna structure inspection and issuance of the NAL, Crown painted the antenna structure, including the cables, prior to receiving notice of the violation from the Commission. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3264A1.txt
    • to the NAL (``response'') wherein it challenged only the public inspection file violation and sought a reduction or cancellation in the proposed forfeiture because of an inability to pay and history of no prior offenses. Discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Paulino's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3267A1.txt
    • interference to a licensed U.S. broadcast station. Based on the record before us, we thus find that, by delivering cross-border programming to Station XEMO, Uniradio undermined one of the primary objectives of Section 325 of the Act and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit. Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of a Commission issued permit, license or other authorization shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The forfeiture amount for entities other than broadcast licensees or permittees, cable television operators and common carriers may not exceed $11,000 for each violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3273A1.txt
    • the alternative, Woodland requested a reduction of the forfeiture amount because it imposes an economic burden on the licensee. Woodland enclosed its tax returns from 2001 to 2003 in support of its economic burden claim. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Woodland's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3273A1_Erratum.doc
    • the alternative, Woodland requested a reduction of the forfeiture amount because it imposes an economic burden on the licensee. Woodland enclosed its tax returns from 2001 to 2003 in support of its economic burden claim. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Woodland's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3277A1.txt
    • record, which showed that Redwood did not own the tower at the time the NAL was issued, we find that Redwood did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432960001, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Redwood Family Services, Inc., P. O. Box 180, Tahoma, California 96142, and its counsel Dennis J. Kelly, Esquire, P.O.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3286A1.txt
    • Island did not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, Big Island sought a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts, its unblemished history of compliance and its inability to pay. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-328A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-329A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3302A1.txt
    • up the files in accordance with Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules. Finally, Ross states that a new EAS Encoder/Decoder has been ordered and will be installed, made operational, and proper logs kept of its use. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Ross' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3305A1.txt
    • painting. Finally, AAT argues that no painting could be done at the time of inspection because of winter weather, even if it had been aware that the paint had faded to the point of violation. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AAT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-330A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3317A1.txt
    • that the Commission cited it for not having, and urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount based on its compliance history, its small market size and in the interest of justice. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Crystal Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3318A1.txt
    • the Commission's Detroit, Michigan Field Office (``Detroit Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Paladen. Paladen has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-331A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3328A1.txt
    • He states that the agents trespassed on his private property without a warrant and refused to leave his property when requested. Finally, he argues that there is no evidence that he operated the radio equipment in alleged violation of the Act. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Dean's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-332A1.txt
    • previously controlled by Arbros, we decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture amount. We conclude that the proposed forfeiture, $50,000, is reasonable based on all the evidence in the record, including the most recent gross revenue information Arbros submitted. IV. ordering clauses 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Arbros Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3345A1.txt
    • upon notification by Commission agents on June 23, 2003; 2) its site personnel did not intend to violate the Rules; and 3) Forest did not authorize its personnel to operate on frequency 473.175 MHz. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Forest's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3348A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3348 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3348 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 = @ U ] z - � � � � � �@��� �@��� �@��� $ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3355A1.txt
    • to establish his inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. In a telephone conversation with Bureau counsel on June 29, 2004, Mr. Martin stated that antenna structure number 1220001 was painted during April 2003. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Martin's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-337A1.txt
    • basis for cancellation or reduction of the $10,000 monetary forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, AAT's petition for reconsideration of the February 4, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-340A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-340 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3417A1.txt
    • employee tasked with that responsibility has been disciplined and that the file has since been updated to include the lists. Finally, in support, Lebanon submitted copies of its contour map, manual and updated issues/program lists. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-348A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-348 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-348 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' - L M M �@��� h�h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3504A1.txt
    • his continued operation of the station was in violation of Section 301 of the Act. After reviewing Mr. Oaks's response, we find that he ``willfully'' and ``repeatedly'' violated Section 301 of the Act. In addition, we conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, that no reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael David Oaks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3505A1.txt
    • he will send the Commission a copy of his credit report which would show his inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. To date, the Commission has not received a copy of Mr. Brown's credit report. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case has been assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Brown's petition take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3516A1.txt
    • Enforcement Bureau's inquiry in seven of the nine categories of information sought. Thus, we find no basis for reducing or eliminating the proposed $3,000 forfeiture for failing to comply with a Bureau order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, American Family Association IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's main studio rule and for willfully failing to comply with a Bureau order. 11. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3547A1.txt
    • Commission Rules. He seeks cancellation or a drastic reduction of the forfeiture amount. In support of his claim of inability to pay the forfeiture amount, he submits certain financial information for the years 2000 - 2002. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Autry's petition, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3548A1.txt
    • and urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount based on the fact that it used its best efforts to make the appropriate changes to the EAS equipment to make it operational. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Desert's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3549A1.txt
    • willful. We concur, however, with Louisa's assertion that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its inability to pay. Accordingly, we reduce the forfeiture amount to two thousand dollars ($2,000). III. ORDERING CLAUSES two thousand dollars ($2,000) for repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3550A1.txt
    • in the small market of Paris, Texas, and the Commission has recognized that forfeitures impose a ``far greater hardship'' on a small market station than on others, citing Dominga Barreto Santiago and Canby Telephone Association. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining East Texas' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3551A1.txt
    • was intended to test a new coverage area that was intended to reduce the possibility of co-channel interference. Therefore, Horizon argues, the move was not a ``conscious and deliberate'' attempt to violate the Communications Act. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Horizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3551A1_Erratum.doc
    • was intended to test a new coverage area that was intended to reduce the possibility of co-channel interference. Therefore, Horizon argues, the move was not a ``conscious and deliberate'' attempt to violate the Communications Act. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Horizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3552A1.txt
    • original coordinates. North Country also argues that it painted the tower as required when it was initially constructed and registered with the FAA. It does not comment on its failure to post the registration number. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining North Country's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3558A1.txt
    • separate folder; and Community has no history of violation of the Commission's Rules. In further support of a reduction or cancellation of its forfeiture, Community cited a series of Enforcement Bureau cases. III. DISCUSSION The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). In examining Community's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3559A1.txt
    • Communications, Inc. (``Tidewater) in support, Aquila submits its lack of intent to violate the rules, its immediate corrective actions, the lack of public harm, its tower compliance program and its long history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Aquila's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3572A1.txt
    • submitted its 2000 tax return and several unsigned ``balance sheets'' and a letter from its current manager regarding its current financial condition. Consequently, Portland Taxicab requests a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Portland Taxicab's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-358A1.txt
    • been delivered. Mrs. Ortiz asserts that she made a good faith effort to comply with the EAS rule and should not be penalized for the equipment vendor's inability to make timely delivery. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Aracelis Ortiz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3593A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3593 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3593 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3594A1.txt
    • (``Buffalo Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Beacon. Beacon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Beacon Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3597A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3597 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3597 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 % & -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3598A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3598 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3598 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 9 : -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3608A1.txt
    • his inability to pay the forfeiture. Lastly, Mr. Estrada asserts that Private Land Mobile Station WSM 534, Chesapeake Bay Contractors, Inc. supports elimination of the forfeiture amount as the violation should not be considered repeated. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Estrada's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3654A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3654 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3654 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3655A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3655 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3655 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3656A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3656 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3656 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3675A1.txt
    • to pay the monetary forfeiture. Mr. Avena also claims that he ceased operating the station on December 20, 2004 and therefore takes issue with the findings in the NAL regarding the station's operation on January 6, 2004 and January 17, 2004. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Avena's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3683A1.txt
    • 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent misconduct, we find that Mid-Missouri apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' As noted above, Mid-Missouri states that it ``believes this was an isolated incident and it is taking the necessary steps to prevent an incident like
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3793A1.txt
    • and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the five unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3793A1_Erratum.doc
    • and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the five unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3799A1.txt
    • not mitigating factors warranting reduction of a forfeiture. As a result of our review, we conclude that Exosphere willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules. We affirm that a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 is appropriate. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Exosphere Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3802A1.txt
    • Gordon claims, it ``is not true that on April 9, 2003 I was still violating ... [Section] 90.403 (a)(2) of the [C]ommission's rules.'' Mr. Gordon offers no other defense or basis for mitigation. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Gordon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3803A1.txt
    • because the Commission should have notified it of the tower's condition when the Commission first discovered the violation on October 29, 2002 so Crown Castle could have remedied the violation and avoided a repeated violation. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown Castle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3805A1.txt
    • lighting violation was corrected upon being informed of the outage, and that the lighting failure resulted from vandalism. Lastly, Mr. Saunders requests cancellation of the forfeiture asserting an inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Saunders's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3817A1.txt
    • module. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has been non-operational as defined under Section 22.317, and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. or contact Denise Walter of the Bureau's Mobility Division at 202-418-0620 or denise.walter@fcc.gov. See Public Notice ``Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces an Audit of the Operational Status of Stations Authorized in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service (Part 22) and Stations Operating on 929-930 MHz Private Carrier Paging Exclusive Channels (Part 90),'' DA No. 04-2596 (rel. Aug. 24,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3819A1.txt
    • feet AGL. In addition, WLTH contends that hunters caused the lighting outage by shooting out the antenna structure lights. Finally, WLTH claims that it notified the FAA of the outage on March 5, 2003. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining WLTH's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3824A1.txt
    • inspection, but claims that he was not operating the station at the time of the second inspection. In conclusion, he stated ``I promise you that this kind of behavior will never take place anymore.'' III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case has been assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Louis' petition take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3829A1.txt
    • Section 73.1125 of the Rules. In its response to the NAL, Twenty-One seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based on it having a meaningful managerial presence, its history of compliance, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Twenty-One's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3831A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3831 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3831 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 7 8 V W 8 V W -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3832A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3832 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3832 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 5 S T 4 5 S T � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3834A1.txt
    • (B), which address forfeitures for violations by licensees and common carriers, among others. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). In accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321, the Commission implemented an increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture under section 503(b)(2)(C) to $11,000. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). The Commission recently amended its rules to increase the maximum penalties to account for inflation since the last adjustment of the penalty rates. The new rates will apply to violations that occur after September 7, 2004. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, FCC 04-139 (rel.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3838A1.txt
    • conclude because the announcements seek impermissibly to distinguish favorably their underwriters from competitors by directly stating or implying that they offer superior service or products, and the announcements, in many instances, also invite or urge business patronage. Moreover, the announcements were aired over a substantial period of time-fifteen months. B. Proposed Action 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement sets forth a
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3850A1.txt
    • equipment had malfunctioned during the Norfolk Office's March 2003 and February 2004 inspections. However, WBLB sought cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture based on its corrective actions, overall history of compliance and inability to pay. discusssion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining WBLB's petition, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3852A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Shadavrus. Shadavrus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shadavrus Capital Trust, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3860A1.txt
    • Tampa Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the referenced Rule violation. Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3862A1.txt
    • test operations after installing a replacement antenna for station KXPW-LP. Power Radio asserted that due to a misunderstanding with its engineering consultant, it was not aware that it was required to file anything with the FCC. However, licensees are expected to know and comply with the FCC's rules. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3862A1_Erratum.doc
    • test operations after installing a replacement antenna for station KXPW-LP. Power Radio asserted that due to a misunderstanding with its engineering consultant, it was not aware that it was required to file anything with the FCC. However, licensees are expected to know and comply with the FCC's rules. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3866A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3866 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3866 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-386A1.txt
    • Illinois ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-IH-0121 NAL/Acct. No. 200232080014 FRN 0001529346 Facility ID # 19525 FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 17, 2004 Released: February 18, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we impose a monetary forfeiture of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) on Emmis FM License Corporation (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for the willful broadcast of indecent material over the station during its March 12, 2001, broadcast of the ``Mancow's Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3879A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3879 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3879 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-387A1.txt
    • 2, 2002, IS HEREBY DENIED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN)(0001529346) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. (200232080008). If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-389A1.txt
    • practices (``GAAP''); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects WCSS's current financial status. WCSS has not submitted such documentation and, therefore, cannot persuasively claim that it does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. IV. ordering clauses 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violating a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau to provide certain information and documents. 13. Payment
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3904A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3904 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-3904 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � h h h � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-390A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). ___ Federal Communications Commission DA 04-390 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 7 d j t { | � � � � � � | � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3912A1.txt
    • the license, and that for the last ten years the translator has been used to broadcast public interest programming in Spanish and other programming not available by broadcast in the community. For these reasons, Echonet requests that the forfeiture be retracted. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Echonet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3915A1.txt
    • based upon financial hardship. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, WCVC's petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's Forfeiture Order issued on February 4, 2004, IS DENIED and the issuance of the $7,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3947A1.txt
    • On October 6, 2004, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to VIA. VIA has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, VIA Technologies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-396A1.txt
    • rules. In light of this apparent violation, we believe it appropriate that Saga be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, in particular because this appears to be an isolated violation, we find the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-397A1.txt
    • we believe it appropriate that Cumulus be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation and provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Although we commend Cumulus' efforts to remind its Myrtle Beach on-air employees of the obligations of section 73.1206, Cumulus' subsequent remedial
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3983A1.txt
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that the lack of a response to a Bureau LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a substantial increase to this base amount.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3991A1.txt
    • a complete public inspection file for station KMDY-FM during normal business hours and had apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management presence at station KMDY-FM. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Moody's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-399A1.txt
    • its assets'' and that ``the forfeiture will simply reduce the amount available to creditors when the bankruptcy is ultimately concluded.'' North American also denies that the violation was willful, characterizing it as an ``isolated incident . . . result[ing] from inadvertency on the part of the station's staff. '' DISCUSSSION In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.'' The forfeiture guidelines establish a $4,000 base forfeiture for exceeding authorized power limits. In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4004A1.txt
    • and the dignity of parties whose conversations may be recorded for simultaneous or later broadcast. These considerations are particularly germane to the facts at issue here. Under these circumstances, we find that an apparent violation of section 73.1206 and that it is appropriate to propose that AMFM be assessed a monetary forfeiture. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4012A1.txt
    • He asserts he would have complied with the July 15th Official Notice, if he had read it, as he complied with the March 18th Official Notice. He also states he did not appreciate that use of non-certificated transmitters violated the Rules. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Salter's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4023A1.txt
    • fact by telephone on the same day. Citadel also asserts that all quarterly issues and program lists have since been placed in the files and that Citadel has a good record of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Citadel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4023A1_Erratum.doc
    • fact by telephone on the same day. Citadel also asserts that all quarterly issues and program lists have since been placed in the files and that Citadel has a good record of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Citadel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4025A1.txt
    • that the Atlanta Office's measurements were inaccurate, that the company undertook immediate and prompt remedial measures, and, finally, that the leakage problems, for the most part, were attributable to customers premises equipment and inside wiring. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4029A1.txt
    • public inspection file has been addressed by the station manager.'' Rama seeks an elimination of the forfeiture or a reduction, based on the violations being technical in nature and not warranting an $18,000 forfeiture. discussion 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Rama's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4031A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4031A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4031A1.txt
    • April 14, 2004. In its response to the NAL, which includes a declaration made under the penalty of perjury by the station's chief engineer, Alfred Hammond, JMK seeks cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining JMK's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4032A1.txt
    • 1999) (forfeiture of approximately 12% reduced to approximately 4.5% of gross revenues). We do not reach the cases cited by SM Radio in support of its request for reconsideration because of the reasons discussed below. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining SM Radio's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4033A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4033A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4033A1.txt
    • fact that its existing towers cannot be repainted because the towers lead paint if scraped could be harmful to the surrounding environment, and because its efforts to relocate to a new location have been hampered by environmental-related concerns as well. discussion The NAL assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Cumulus's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4036A1.txt
    • different frequency. In a separate note attached to its response, Caprice also states that it cannot afford to pay $4,000 and requests that the Commission consider reducing the forfeiture amount on that basis as well. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Caprice's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4044A1.txt
    • the NAL's findings. FFP nevertheless sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based upon its good faith efforts to comply with the subject registration requirements, after the Tampa Office notified FFP of the lack of registration. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4045A1.txt
    • intended to make use of the Louisa tower and would have dismantled it but for Francis's request to use it. The ASR data base indicates that Lycom registered the Louisa tower on March 8, 2004. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Lycom's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-437A2.txt
    • its Registration Statement; $12,000 (below the maximum allowed by the OSC but not inconsistent with precedent, see, e.g., Broadstreet Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 7938 (Enf. Bur. 2002)) for the unauthorized discontinuation of service in Vermont; $40,000 (below the maximum allowed by the OSC but not inconsistent with precedent (see, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, note to section (b)(4), Section 1) for each of nine unauthorized changes of long distance telephone service for a total of $360,000; $10,000 (the maximum allowed by MO&O, FCC 03M-33) for BOI's willful failure to timely make its TRS contribution; and $10,000 (less than what MO&O, FCC 03M-33 allowed but consistent with 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, note to section (b)(4),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-445A1.txt
    • a response to the NAL. The Bureau's Forfeiture Order, released January 31, 2003, affirmed the forfeiture proposed by the NAL. On February 26, 2003, Coffee County filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Coffee County's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-458A1.txt
    • he didn't have any way in which to verify whether the station was in violation of the Commission's rules. Mr. Alusma also argues that he is unable to pay the forfeiture due to financial hardship. In support of his argument of financial hardship, Mr. Alusma includes various financial documents. DISCUSSION In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.'' The forfeiture guidelines establish a $10,000 base forfeiture for operation without a license. In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-48A1.txt
    • H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(11). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-48 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-48 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � `` � � � � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-53A1.txt
    • a couple of days. Tekk further states that its violation was not willful and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. Therefore, Tekk seeks reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Tekk's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-544A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-544 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-544 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � \ � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-602A1.txt
    • Roots has no assets. According to Virginia State Corporation Commission records, the business license for Grass Roots Broadcasting, LLC, was cancelled on December 31, 2003. Finally, Grass Roots states that the cited rule violations have been corrected. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $20,000 forfeiture is warranted. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the proposed $20,000 forfeiture issued to Grass Roots broadcasting IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-605A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-605 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-605 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT E F � hT � � hT � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-684A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission ________ DA 04-684 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! $ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-692A1.txt
    • Section 73.49 of the Rules. In its response, State requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its corrective efforts and its participation in the Georgia Association of Broadcasters' Alternative Broadcast Inspection Program (``ABIP''). III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining State's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-701A1.txt
    • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission ________ DA 04-701 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � " � " � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-708A1.txt
    • a licensee's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a forfeiture. After reviewing the financial data submitted, we find that the monetary forfeiture amount should not be further reduced. 11. We have examined Tralyn's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Tralyn willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules and find that, although cancellation of the monetary forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the forfeiture amount to $5,600 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-709A1.txt
    • date, we have not received such a supplementary response. We did receive correspondence from Three Angels on February 13, 2004, but that correspondence simply transmits a copy of Three Angels' earlier response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Three Angels' response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-70A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Each entity shall encompass, to the extent they are known to you, any affiliate, d/b/a, parent companies, any wholly or partially owned subsidiary, or other affiliated companies or businesses, and all directors, officers, employees, or agents, including consultants and any other persons working for or on behalf of the foregoing at any time during the period covered by this letter.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-710A1.txt
    • substantial reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture, citing an inability to pay, Bonners Ferry's compliance history, remedial measures undertaken, and the physical location and seasonal ground conditions in the immediate area of the antenna structure. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Bonners Ferry's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-711A1.txt
    • its commonly owned and controlled company Kaspar Broadcasting Company, Inc., have an unblemished history of serving their broadcast communities. We believe that the circumstances surrounding and the nature and extent of Kaspar's violation, together with its unblemished past history, justifies cancellation of the NAL. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the prior Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332560001, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Vern Kaspar, President, Kaspar Broadcasting Co. of Missouri, P.O. Box 545, Frankfort, Indiana 46041. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-773A1.txt
    • willful and repeated violation of section 53.203(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. These violations pertain to the nondiscrimination safeguards established by the Act and the Commission's rules to promote efficient competition. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that a forfeiture of $75,000 is appropriate, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-784A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-784 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-784 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 B F � � � � + u � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-793A1.txt
    • funds for the station.'' To support its financial hardship claim, NRS provides copies of its 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns as well as profit and loss statements covering a three year period. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining NRS's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-898A1.txt
    • to receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14129. 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-898 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � y � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-8A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-8A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-8A1.txt
    • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-900A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Ivette. Ivette has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Esperanza Gonzales d/b/a Ivette Car Service IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-901A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Star. Star has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Star Car Service IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-902A1.txt
    • the general manager. Horne argues that payment of the proposed forfeiture would be a financial hardship. To support its financial hardship argument, Horne provides copies of its 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Horne's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-904A1.txt
    • willfully and/or repeatedly violate Section 303(q) of the Act or Sections 17.48(a) and 17.51(b) of the Rules. Specifically, the lighting outage was caused by lightning and the licensee promptly reported the outage to the Federal Aviation Administration. Accordingly, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332360002, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Vicki Schultheis, Manager, FCC Licensing, CenturyTel Wireless of Michigan RSA #1&2, Inc., PO Box 9901, Vancouver, Washington 98668-8701. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-90A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-90 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-xxxx FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� h� h� h� gd� gd� H P R V W Y Z _ n o p � � h� G H Z [ o p � � �@��� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-923A1.txt
    • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violation and ensure that this does not recur. SM Radio's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, SM Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1125 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-926A1.txt
    • also argues that, if the proposed forfeiture is imposed, it will place a serious financial burden on the company and provides copies of its 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns to support this claim. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Westshore's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-947A1.txt
    • the NAL, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture claiming that the violations resulted from employee error. Petracom also seeks cancellation based on remedial measures taken, an inability to pay, and a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''). In examining Petracom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-956A1.txt
    • file available at the main studio and that it has good record of compliance with FCC requirements. In addition, Trade Center argues that it relied on the advice of its engineer. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Trade Center's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-967A1.txt
    • with timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-974A1.txt
    • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 I K S U Y $ G H I J K ] ^ s t Y \ ] c r s t � � 2t -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-976A1.txt
    • disclaimer notice may not have provided AAPEX participants with adequate information, given that Schumacher's booth exhibited mock-ups of both authorized, and non-authorized, equipment. We thus caution Schumacher to exercise greater care, by labeling or providing alternative advisory notice for identified authorized devices and by utilizing the standard disclaimer notice for identified non-authorized devices. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1029A1.txt
    • discontinued marketing this product. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1029 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1029 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 * + 0 > W X Y [ � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1030A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1030A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1030A1.txt
    • released April 8, 2005). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1030 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1030 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 u v \ q r h $r t v w h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1031A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1031A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1031A1.txt
    • Bureau Federal Communications Commission 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1031 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1031 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `��gd � � � � h� h � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1033A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1033A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1033A1.txt
    • Bureau Federal Communications Commission 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1033 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1033 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `��gd h� h � � " � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1034A1.txt
    • Bureau Federal Communications Commission 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1034 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1034 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `��gd h� h (R) � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1035A1.txt
    • Bureau Federal Communications Commission 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1035 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1035 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `��gd h � � � h� h � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1036A1.txt
    • Bureau Federal Communications Commission 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1036 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1036 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `��gd h� h � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1037A1.txt
    • Bureau Federal Communications Commission 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1037 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1037 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `��gd h � � � � � h� � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1053A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1053 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1053 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1055A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1055 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1055 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1059A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1059 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1059 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � (R) -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1081A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1081 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1081 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1087A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1087 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1087 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1088A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1088 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1088 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1090A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1090 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1090 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-109A1.txt
    • in assessing the forfeiture, the Commission failed to follow the requirements of its own rules and regulations. Finally, Barinowski claims that the Bureau failed to consider the Section 503(b) factors in determining the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Barinowski's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1104A1.txt
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1104 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1104 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 + , - . / 0 > � � (c) � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1107A1.txt
    • Enforcement Bureau (March 30,2005). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1107 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1107 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 5 L R X [ c y { � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-110A1.txt
    • vendor, stating that it completed the change from frequency 151.790 MHz to 151.805 MHz on March 1, 2004. Finally, Mitchell requests a payment plan in the event that the forfeiture amount is not reduced or cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mitchell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1155A1.txt
    • website. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' Response at 2. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1155 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 D } � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1367A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1367 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1367 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 : Z � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-137A1.txt
    • that fail to meet the requirement by the expiration of the deadline will have their licenses automatically terminated, without specific Commission action, on the date the construction or coverage period expired. 47 C.F.R. � 1.946(c). Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4(b), 1.4(d) for computation of the beginning date and terminal date. In a Declaratory Ruling issued today, the Bureau clarifies the reconsideration period and effective termination date associated with the automatic termination process for all wireless service licensees that have construction or coverage performance requirements. Clarification of Reconsideration Period and Effective Date
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1388A1.txt
    • devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1388 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1388 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ? % < ? @ C D E � � -? @ � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1511A1.txt
    • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that ACC Licensee, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17. IT
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1512A1.txt
    • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that NBC Telemundo License Co. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 19.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1513A1.txt
    • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Fox Television Stations, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
    • forfeitures to broadcast station licensees to encompass the entire current license term and clarify the meaning of ``current license term.'' Need: These rules restate the statutory language of 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5)(6) and 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6). Legal Basis: Secs. 4, 202, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303; 5 U.S.C. 552; 21 U.S.C. 853a. Section Number and Title: 1.80(c)(1), 1.80(d) Forfeiture Proceedings. SUBPART E -- COMPLAINTS, APPLICATIONS, TARIFFS, AND REPORTS INVOLVING COMMON CARRIERS Brief Description: Part 1, subpart E implements section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 208 permits any person to lodge a complaint with the Commission against a common carrier alleging a violation of the Act. Section 208 places a duty on the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1537A1.txt
    • reasons set forth below, we issue a Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture (``NAL'') to GGCB for violation of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. The violation involves GGCB's failure to maintain the requisite meaningful presence at the WQYZ(FM) main studio. We are proposing a forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Under Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $ 7,000, and we issue an NAL for this amount. In adopting Section 73.1125, the Commission stated that a station's main studio must have the capability to serve the needs and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1595A1.txt
    • to WBLT in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. On March 2, 2005, WBLT submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining WBLT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1597A1.txt
    • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. McKinney filed a response to the NAL on May 6, 2005, requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. McKinney's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1599A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Dacres. Mr. Dacres has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Samuel E. Dacres IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating an FM radio transmitter without a license in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1611A1.txt
    • Pembroke in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Pembroke filed a response to the NAL dated April 14, 2005 requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pembroke's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1621A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1621 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1621 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 = Q Q R S � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1622A1.txt
    • provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1622 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1622 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 � � � tm � � � � h� h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1623A1.txt
    • frequency that Universal had been using under the service agreement. Universal claims that neither vendor advised Universal that it was required to acquire a license to operate the portable transceivers on the frequency 465.63125 MHz. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1625A1.txt
    • by an officer or director of Source. Source also must submit an affidavit, signed by an officer or director of Source, notifying the Commission when the structure has been brought into full compliance with the rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Source USA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.4(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to Commission correspondence. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Source shall file the plan described in paragraph 3 above within ten (10) days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1626A1.txt
    • warrant cancellation or further reduction of the monetary forfeiture, even if the petition had been timely. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Arnold's petition for reconsideration IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Arnold IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1631A1.txt
    • license expired on April 29, 2004 until the STA request was granted on January 4, 2005. During those eight months, WRN acted in apparent violation of Sections 301 of the Act and 25.102 of the Rules by willfully and repeatedly operating the earth station without Commission authority. The guidelines contained in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules specify a base forfeiture amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1633A1.txt
    • Commission rules ordinarily would warrant a proposed forfeiture above the base amount, we find that those factors are counter-balanced here by the licensee's good-faith efforts to remedy the situation prior to our initiation of this investigation. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Capstar TX Limited Partnership is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Capstar TX Limited
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1633A1_Erratum.doc
    • Commission rules ordinarily would warrant a proposed forfeiture above the base amount, we find that those factors are counter-balanced here by the licensee's good-faith efforts to remedy the situation prior to our initiation of this investigation. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Capstar TX Limited Partnership is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Capstar TX Limited
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-163A1.txt
    • FCC Rcd 4438 (Priv. Rad. Bur. 1994) (``Vaughn''), in support of its contention that the location at Parkview House site was within the Commission's authorized area of operation for its licensed coordinates DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Statcom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1666A1.txt
    • the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1666 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1684A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Scottie E. Kennedy IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully operating a radio transmitter without a license in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1685A1.txt
    • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Vector. Vector has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Vector Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on its antenna structures in violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1686A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mega Communications. Mega Communications has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mega Communications of St. Petersburg, Licensee L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure painting and lighting specifications in violation of Section 17.21 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1701A1.txt
    • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Hawking imported and sold 7,520 units. We estimate that Hawking's economic gain from marketing 7,520 devices that retailed for about $75.00 each was, conservatively, at least
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1708A1.txt
    • a small market whose limited resources make a $3,000 forfeiture a significant obligation.'' In support, Brown Broadcasting submits federal income tax returns for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 as required by Paragraph 11 of the NAL. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Brown Broadcasting's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1709A1.txt
    • $1,000 based upon inability to pay, Mr. Clay seeks reconsideration and further reduction on the basis of changed circumstances. Specifically, he claims that his amount of monthly income has been reduced as a result of divorce. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Clay's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1711A1.txt
    • KHRA's main studio when the inspection was conducted. Trade Center also argues that the record does not support the Commission's finding that Trade Center's violation of the public file rule was willful or repeated. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Trade Center's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1783A1.txt
    • Forfeiture Order should be affirmed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Clamor Broadcasting Network, Inc., on August 20, 2004, IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1791A1.txt
    • telephone dialing systems to contact, for example, emergency telephone lines, hospital patient rooms, and multi-line businesses. 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(4). Although one complainant lists ``contacts.com'' as the company involved, Commission staff was redirected to your company's website upon entering the internet address ``contacts.com.'' See Complaint filed by R. Eaves, November 29, 2004. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1791 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-1791 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 g g | � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1817A1.txt
    • corrective action taken long prior to the issuance of the NAL,'' the applicable law does not support the proposed forfeiture and that such a forfeiture would be contrary to ``sound public policy'' and ``would fail to serve any public purpose.'' III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Lotus' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-18A1.txt
    • whether these rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated. REVIEW OF RELEVANT RULES The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses forfeiture penalties applicable to common carriers [and others]. These rules are not competition-related, and thus we cannot find that they are ``no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition.'' Accordingly, we find that these rules should be retained. Rules 1.711 through 1.736 set forth the procedures for formal complaint proceedings against common carriers.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1907A1.txt
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. QuickLink's failure to respond occurred in the face of numerous attempts by Bureau staff to call QuickLink's attention to the importance of responding to the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1923A1.txt
    • Tampa Office of the Enforcement Bureau. The above-captioned matter should have been closed with Mega Communications' payment of the $10,000 proposed forfeiture. Therefore, we cancel the $10,000 forfeiture issued to Mega Communications in the June 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Sections 0.11, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4) and 1.113 of the Commission's Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) issued to Mega Communications of St. Petersburg Licensee, L.L.C. in the June 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order IS CANCELED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mega Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1938A1.txt
    • with the provision of commercial leased access services. Accordingly, StogMedia's request to be compensated for its loss of income is denied. In view of Eastern's repeated failure to comply with Section 76.970(i)(1), we are considering separately issuing to Eastern a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.80 and 76.975(f) of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules that the petition for relief filed by StogMedia in File No. CSR 6585-L IS GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that Eastern shall within fifteen days from the release date of this order provide StogMedia the requested
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1949A1.txt
    • statements, HBS has neither submitted, nor cited to, any other evidence supporting its claim of financial hardship. However, in recognition of the fact that HBS has maintained heretofore a good overall compliance record, we will reduce the forfeiture from $10,000 to $8,000. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Hispanic Broadcast System, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements in violation of section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules and section 399B of the Act. 6. Payment of the forfeiture must be made in the manner provided for in Section
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2014A1.txt
    • based on Noe's overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules, we find that a reduction in the forfeiture amount to the base amount of $4,000 per violation is warranted, for a total forfeiture of $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Noe Corp., L.L.C., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2036A1.txt
    • a ``dormant'' corporation. See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Martin Osterman, Product Manager, TeleRadio AB (November 4, 2004). See Letter from Martin Osterman, Product Manager, TeleRadio AB, to Yasin Ozer, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 15, 2004). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2036 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2036 � $ � � L � .� � � � � � � � � � � � $ m n m n � � � � �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2043A1.txt
    • its exemplary efforts to ensure that KCDZ(FM) was able to receive local primary stations in two counties, while situated in an area that the relevant County EAS Plan describes as having ``difficult coverage,'' we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432900010, IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Morongo Basin Broadcasting Corporation, 6448 Hallee Road #5, Joshua Tree, California 92252. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rebecca L. Dorch Regional Director,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2060A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mr. Loflin. Mr. Loflin has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, David M. Loflin IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating a station on an unauthorized channel in violation of Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2064A1.txt
    • his operating equipment to the San Francisco agents and then surrendered his amateur license to the Commission. He also argues that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture and, to support this claim, supplies three years of tax records. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Silva's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2065A1.txt
    • of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a) of the Rules. On June 6, 2005, Twenty-One Sound submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Twenty-One Sound's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2068A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2069A1.txt
    • dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. On June 17, 2005, Hightech submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Hightech's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2070A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2071A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2072A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2073A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2074A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2075A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2076A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2077A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2078A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2080A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2081A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2082A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2083A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2084A1.txt
    • prior to the compliance deadline, and you have not now provided sufficient information to allow us to conclude that you have not had sufficient time to overcome those problems. Nevertheless, you will be afforded an additional 90 days to fully comply with the PSIP implementation requirement. Rule Violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, digital broadcast licensees were required to implement the PSIP standard, pursuant to Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2225A1.txt
    • BTC has assumed premature control of the station, either before the filing of the subject application or during its pendency. Based on the foregoing, we find that the applicants are fully qualified and that grant of the transfer of control application will serve the public interest. Rules Violations Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means the violator knew it was taking the action in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2228A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2228 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2228 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2234A1.txt
    • of KLMO. Pilgrim asserts that the Bureau failed to give adequate weight to this information. Pilgrim also cites Renaissance Radio, Inc., in further support of its request for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Pilgrim's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2235A1.txt
    • demonstrated that KWYD had lost money each year, except for 2000, when it was marginally profitable. Pilgrim also cites Renaissance Radio, Inc., in further support of its request for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Pilgrim's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2236A1.txt
    • the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2236 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2237A1.txt
    • the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2237 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2238A1.txt
    • the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2238 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2258A1.txt
    • of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that they provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $24,000 for each station. 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Waterman Broadcasting, Corp., IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $24,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 25. IT
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2264A1.txt
    • or declaration, under penalty of perjury, and signed by an officer or director of the declarant. WKLC should note that its noncompliance could result in enforcement action. Further, we ADMONISH WKLC, Inc. for its failure to report the replacement of its original antenna structure. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432340002, IS CANCELED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WKLC, Inc. is hereby ADMONISHED for its failure to report the replacement of its original antenna structure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, WKLC, Inc. must submit the report described in paragraph seven
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2318A1.txt
    • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2318 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2318 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - ! R ` a b � � � � " � � � � � a b � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2345A1.txt
    • and referrals, we find that it was not possible for the licensee to have adequately analyzed its recruitment program to ensure that it was effective in achieving broad outreach and it failed to address this problem for a period of 18 months, in violation of � 73.2080(c)(3). 5. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission�s rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 (a), state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission�s rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. As noted above, during the time period of March 10, 2003, through September 30, 2004, it is apparent that the unit willfully
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2352A1.txt
    • Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (December 12, 2004). See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Division, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Joe Renzhou Yao (June 8, 2005). Id. See Letter from Joe Renzhou Yao, Owner of Joe's Photo Auction, to Neal McNeil, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (June 28, 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2352 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 } ~ | } ~ � � � h h $� � � h � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2361A1.txt
    • as timely notice of the extent of its excess power levels on the nights of August 17, 18, and 19, 2002. We have examined the 4M of Richmond's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. As a result of our review, we conclude that no further reduction is warranted and that the appropriate amount for the forfeiture is $6,600. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules, 4M of Richmond's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2364A1.txt
    • Vera-Maury in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. On June 15, 2005, Mr. Vera-Maury submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Vera-Maury's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2365A1.txt
    • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Riels filed a response to the NAL on June 8, 2005, requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Riels' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2366A1.txt
    • no demonstrated inability to pay and thus no basis for reduction of the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Clephar's petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mr. Clephar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2367A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mr. Guerrero. Mr. Guerrero has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rafael C. Guerrero IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to maintain operational EAS equipment at KRSC(AM), Othello, Washington, in violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2374A1.txt
    • for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Bee Taxi Corporation. Bee Taxi Corporation has neither paid the NAL nor filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Bee Taxi Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2375A1.txt
    • the nature of the violation, and payment of the forfeiture would impose a substantial financial hardship. Snow Hill submitted financial statements in supplements filed on November 4, 2004, March 28, 2005, and April 20, 2005. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2376A1.txt
    • station did not have a license; (5) he ceased operating after the FCC agents inspected the station and provided him a warning letter; and (6) he is financially unable to pay the full forfeiture amount. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2382A1.txt
    • USA,'' leaves little doubt that Gibson was fully aware that the R-FM25B-WT and R-FM100B-WT have not been authorized for sale in the United States. We find, accordingly, that Gibson apparently marketed two models of uncertified FM broadcast transmitters in the United States, in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. Section 1.80(d) of the Rules provides in pertinent part that: No forfeiture penalty shall be imposed upon any person under this section, if such person does not hold a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, and if such person is not an applicant for a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, unless, prior to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2392A1.txt
    • to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $20,000 for QuickLink's failure to respond to a Commission communication as set forth in the QuickLink NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that QuickLink Telecom, Inc., SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2394A1.txt
    • run-and-gun, hand-held, b-roll, news, sports, documentaries - it makes no difference.'' An intentional radiator is ``A device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3 (o). See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. The specific import conditions are set forth in Section 2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2394 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " - . / ? O P Q S \ ^ l m t � � `` � � � � *� � " h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-23A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-23A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-23A1.txt
    • On July 30, 2004, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to PSN. PSN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Pacific Spanish Network, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2429A1.txt
    • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Here, Inteligain marketed, and apparently continues to market, equipment in a manner inconsistent with a condition in its equipment authorized intended to ensure compliance with RF exposure limits. Given
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2537A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that the station's Children's Television Programming Reports and records concerning compliance with commercial limits on children's programming for 1997 and the first three quarters of 1998
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2663A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation. On the other hand, the station's public inspection file was missing required documents for four quarters during the license term. Considering the record
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2665A1.txt
    • prior record of violation with the Commission. FMG petitioned for reconsideration stating that the Order failed to properly address FMG's arguments concerning the conditions of the tower, the agent's distance from the structure and other important facts which, in FMG's view, undermine the validity of the NAL. 4. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Guidelines'') set forth the Commission's standards for review of a petition for reconsideration of the imposition of a forfeiture for a rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2679A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2679 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2679 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2720A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Mr. Sims. Mr. Sims has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Russell A. Sims, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for operating a citizens band radio station without Commission authorization and refusing to make his station available for inspection in violation of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2721A1.txt
    • apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.1125 of the Rules. Clamor filed a response to the NAL requesting reconsideration of the proposed forfeiture on December 22, 2004. Clamor's response included additional information and statements regarding the August inspection. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Clamor's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2722A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Ms. Salazar. Ms. Salazar has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Maria L. Salazar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(e) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2747A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that the station's records concerning compliance with commercial limits on children's programming for the third quarter of 1998 through the fourth quarter of 2000 and TV
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2751A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation and instituted measures to prevent its recurrence. Based on the record before us, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate for the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2752A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. Here, the licensee acknowledges that its Children's Television Programming Reports, records concerning children's programming commercial limits, and TV issues/programs lists were missing from the public file since June 2003. Moreover, the licensee
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2754A1.txt
    • In its Petition, CB has offered no new evidence nor cited any relevant case law to support a cancellation of the Forfeiture Order. We have reviewed carefully CB's arguments pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules. We conclude that CB's Petition should be denied and the Forfeiture Order affirmed, finding that CB willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. As the forfeiture amount has already been reduced from the original amount set out in the NAL, we determine
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2785A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2785 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2785 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `` '' � � � ' `` '' � = -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2825A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation. On the other hand, the station's public inspection file was missing several required documents for three quarters during the license term. Considering the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2826A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. Here, the licensee acknowledges that various records were not included in, removed from, missing, or late-filed in the WJYS(TV) public inspection file and/or with the Commission. The public inspection file serves the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2827A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that the station's TV issues/programs lists from May 1998 until approximately September 2004 and the station's 1993 EEO public file report were missing from the public
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2858A1.txt
    • cancel the forfeiture previously imposed. Nevertheless, the licensee is properly admonished to pay more attention to the continuing accuracy of its submissions to the Commission. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed against KNVO-DT in the NAL IS GRANTED, and the forfeiture imposed therein IS CANCELLED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna C. Gregg Acting Chief, Media Bureau cc: Barry A Friedman, Esquire See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2860A1.txt
    • cancel the forfeiture previously imposed. Nevertheless, the licensee is properly admonished to pay more attention to the continuing accuracy of its submissions to the Commission. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed against KINC-DT in the NAL IS GRANTED, and the forfeiture imposed therein IS CANCELLED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna C. Gregg Acting Chief, Media Bureau cc: Barry A Friedman, Esquire See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2861A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2868A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2869A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2872A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2873A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2875A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2876A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2877A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2878A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2879A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-287A1.txt
    • 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages identified above. We have further determined that Septic Safety is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $14,500. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311, that Septic Safety, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $14,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2880A1.txt
    • the failure to comply with the PSIP implementation requirement is a potential violation of the Commission's Rules -- requires reconsideration of the forfeiture imposed here. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed in the NAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4) Entravision Holdings, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of three
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2893A1.txt
    • cancel the forfeiture previously imposed. Nevertheless, the licensee is properly admonished to pay more attention to the continuing accuracy of its submissions to the Commission. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's request to cancel or reduce the forfeiture imposed against KLUZ-DT in the NAL IS GRANTED, and the forfeiture imposed therein IS CANCELLED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna C. Gregg Acting Chief, Media Bureau cc: Barry A Friedman, Esquire See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2894A1.txt
    • assessed forfeiture is appropriate here, and we will reduce the amount of that forfeiture to $4,000, the base amount for operation at an unauthorized location. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Commonwealth Public Broadcasting Corp.'s Petition For Reconsideration of the April 30, 2004 Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the $10,000 monetary forfeiture is reduced to $4,000. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this letter. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2899A1.txt
    • Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture (``NAL'') to GCCC for its apparent willful violation of Sections 73.3571(h)(3) and 73.5005(d) of the Commission's rules. The apparent violation involves GGCB's failure to timely file a complete Form 301 application by the January 18, 2005 deadline. We are proposing a forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Under Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required information is $3,000, and we propose a forfeiture for this amount. For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.283 and 1.80, GCCC is hereby
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2907A1.txt
    • the licensee's admission that, while the lists for 1996-1998 apparently were completed and timely placed in the station's public inspection file, they were misplaced during a studio move in late 2002 and could not be recreated. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Policy Statement"). In examining TDC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2910A1.txt
    • broadcast record, however, reveals no other sanctions for violation of Commission rules. In light of KOFI's history of overall compliance prior to this broadcast, we will lower the $6,000 forfeiture to the statutory base of $4,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, KOFI, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2928A1.txt
    • that it cooperated with the Commission, and ``sought on it own initiative'' to comply with the equipment authorization requirements. Additionally, B.E.A. claims an inability to pay the proposed forfeiture, and a record of overall compliance with the Commission's equipment requirements. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We find,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2953A1.txt
    • assessed forfeiture is appropriate here, and we will reduce the amount of that forfeiture to $4,000, the base amount for operation at an unauthorized location. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances as set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.61, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Commonwealth Public Broadcasting Corp.'s Petition For Reconsideration of the April 30, 2004 Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the $10,000 monetary forfeiture is reduced to $4,000. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this letter. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2969A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that the station's records concerning compliance with commercial limits on children's programming for the first quarter of 1997 through the fourth quarter of 2000 were missing
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2973A1.txt
    • reduced the forfeiture amount from $25,000 to $18,000, because it concluded the station's public file was incomplete, rather than unavailable. The Enforcement Bureau received Twenty-One Sound's petition for reconsideration on August 26, 2005, requesting further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Twenty-One Sound's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2988A1.txt
    • protection, its egregious act of essentially unilaterally granting itself a network nonduplication waiver, the length of the violation, and the substantial harm to KSNF's network nonduplication rights warrant the proposed forfeiture in excess of the base amount. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.283, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Cable One, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 76.92(a) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Cable One,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2994A1.txt
    • the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2994 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # ( ) d e f � � � - � � � � � � h5 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2995A1.txt
    • (when its licenses expired) until February 14, 2005 (when its STA was granted). Thus, it appears that SDN violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file renewal applications, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its stations without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2998A1.txt
    • transmit RF energy on these restricted frequencies. See Public Notice, Report No. 2662, released June 25, 2004, regarding RM-11002. See Order In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking of the Part 15 Regulations and Request for Waiver of the Part 2 Marketing Regulations, RM-11002, FCC 05-136, 20 FCC Rcd. 12256 (2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2998 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-2998 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! < � `` � � (c) � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3004A1.txt
    • without an instrument of authorization, Journal apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Journal also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by filing its license renewal application on July 27, 2005, more than one year beyond the 30-day requirement prescribed by the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3025A1.txt
    • the station is licensed to operate with a directional antenna (ODD model ODD930823IG) and an ERP of 34 watts horizontal and 100 watts vertical. The station owner admitted that the station installed the non-directional antenna with no vertical component earlier in April. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Family's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3063A1.txt
    • would constitute a violation of a Commission order, subjecting it to possible enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures. The Federal Express delivery tracking system indicates that the follow-up letter was received by Shenzhen Ruidian Communication on June 13, 2005. To date, the Bureau has not received any response from Shenzhen Ruidian Communication. DISCUSSION Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. In exercising our forfeiture authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3088A1.txt
    • to a further downward adjustment of the forfeiture amount -- to zero -- based on its record of overall compliance. Finally, Faith submits financial records illustrating its inability to pay any forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Faith's opposition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3115A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that the station's TV issues/programs lists for several quarters were missing from the public inspection file. As a result, the public file was not complete for
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3117A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11) (iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued throughout most of the license term. Specifically, it
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3118A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee acknowledges that the station's records concerning compliance with commercial limits on children's programming and TV issues/programs lists for several quarters were missing from the public inspection file.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3119A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that the station's TV issues/programs lists for the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of 2002, and its records concerning compliance with commercial limits
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3120A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form. As explained above, Channel 32 has apparently failed to comply with Section 73.3615 of the Rules by not filing Biennial Ownership Reports for 2001 and 2003. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3121A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. Here, the station's public inspection file was missing required documents for five quarters during the license term. Considering the record as a whole, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate for
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3123A1.txt
    • did not engage in interference; that the actual motive behind the NAL is to silence his messages in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and that he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3124A1.txt
    • no emergency existed; that he did not transmit for approximately 40 minutes; that he did not jam or interfere with any emergency communication; and that he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3125A1.txt
    • non-FCC certified Connex models, because they are Amateur Radios. On July 27, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau rejected Hightech's arguments and released the Forfeiture Order. The Enforcement Bureau received Hightech's petition for reconsideration on August 30, 2005, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Hightech's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3192A1.txt
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Blackstone's failures to respond occurred despite attempts by Bureau staff to call Blackstone's attention to the importance of responding to LOIs. We find that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3192A1_Erratum.doc
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Blackstone's failures to respond occurred despite attempts by Bureau staff to call Blackstone's attention to the importance of responding to LOIs. We find that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3198A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form. As explained above, station WVSN(TV) has apparently failed to comply with Section 73.3615 of the Rules by not filing a 2003 Biennial Ownership Report. In evaluating an application for
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3199A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form. As explained above, station WCCV-TV has apparently failed to comply with Section 73.3615 of the Rules by not filing a 2003 Biennial Ownership Report. In evaluating an application for
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3200A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form. As explained above, station WYLE(TV) has apparently failed to comply with Section 73.3615 of the Rules by not filing a 2002 Biennial Ownership Report. In evaluating an application for
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3201A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation and instituted measures to prevent its recurrence. Nevertheless, TV issues/programs lists for four quarters and the station's main license were missing from the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3202A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that, with the exception of 1999, the required documentation was missing from the public inspection file throughout the license term. As a result, the public file
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3220A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation. On the other hand, required documents for three quarters were missing from the public inspection file. Considering the record as a whole, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3221A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. Here, the licensee acknowledges that the required documents for several quarters were missing from the station's public inspection file. Specifically, the licensee reports that records concerning compliance with the children's programming commercial
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3222A1.txt
    • in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. On September 15, 2005, Arcom submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Arcom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3236A1.txt
    • ASR's for antenna structure #1005017. Schikora filed a response to the NAL on January 7, 2005 (``Response''). Schikora's Response consists solely of a print-out of his FCC Registration Number registration form along with a note stating ``proof of registration.'' III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Schikora's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3241A1.txt
    • as justice may require.'' Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the employment unit violated the Commission's rules because it did not recruit for every full-time vacancy as required by 47 C.F.R. � 73.2080(c)(1) and failed to self-assess adequately its EEO program in violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.2080(c)(3). 5. The Commission's guidelines for assessing forfeitures, set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the rules, do not specify base amounts for EEO violations, such as a failure to recruit for openings or to self-assess EEO performance. However, in Emmis Television Licensee, LLC (``Emmis''), we issued an $18,000 forfeiture and three years of reporting conditions for a licensee's violations of 47 C.F.R. �� 73.2080(c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) as a result of an
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3246A1.txt
    • four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Classic for violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on the unauthorized frequency of 31.02 MHz. Classic filed a response to the NAL on April 13, 2005. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Classic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3248A1.txt
    • unregistered tower since 1999 and had received three subsequent requests for information regarding the antenna structure registration. On April 7, 2005, Forsberg submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Forsberg's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3255A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 for violation of the children's television commercialization or programming requirements. However, an upward adjustment is justified in this case in light of the high number of commercial overages in this case. Further, the violations apparently occurred
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3269A1.txt
    • deliberate and that it believed in good faith that it had updated all of its ASR's. Finally, ACS argues that it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules and, therefore, is entitled to a reduced forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining ACS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3270A1.txt
    • entirely accurate; that the fence surrounding the KULE(AM) tower was effective; that the size of the gap in the fence is overstated in the NAL; and that, given Butterfield's recent compliance history with KULE(AM), a $7,000 forfeiture is not warranted. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Butterfield's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3273A1.txt
    • unlicensed station, and Viper provides no authority to support its position that it was not required to file a license renewal application during the pendency of its license to cover a KRMS-FM facilities upgrade. Moreover, its misunderstanding does not justify its failure to comply with the rules. 3. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3280A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued for approximately three years of the license term. Based
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3281A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued for approximately three years of the license term. Based
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3282A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued for approximately three years of the license term. Based
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3284A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued throughout the license term. Specifically, it indicates that it
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3286A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued throughout the license term. Specifically, it indicates that it
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3287A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued throughout the license term. Specifically, it indicates that it
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-333A1.txt
    • twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules. Halifax filed a response to the NAL requesting partial cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture on January 7, 2005. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Halifax's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-336A1.txt
    • decision to the contrary, we decline to cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture on the basis of inability to pay. We have considered the forfeiture amount and we have examined Best Wok's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Best Wok willfully violated Section 301 of the Act and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-344A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-344 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-344 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-345A1.txt
    • on October 25, 2004, B.E.A. obtained an equipment authorization from the Commission. In the instant case, we find that B.E.A. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by importing and marketing in the United States intentional radiator devices prior to obtaining Commission equipment authorization. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-346A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-346 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-346 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-348A1.txt
    • in exchange for payment, and belie any claim that the announcements were aired on a gratuitous basis. In addition, the inclusion of the Star Cruise announcement in the programming supplied to the station was, according to Minority, based on ``oral barter or trade arrangement'' and thus supported by consideration. B. Proposed Action 14. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-349A1.txt
    • ensuring that any material broadcast in a foreign language conforms to the requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules. To the extent that HBS has ignored its duties in this regard, we remind it to take appropriate care in the future to avoid further lapses of this type. B. Proposed Action 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-350A1.txt
    • Kimtron states that it has discharged that engineer and replaced him with a qualified individual. Kimtron maintains that it has a history of compliance with Commission Rules and requests that the proposed forfeiture be cancelled. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Kimtron's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-363A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mr. Westcott. Mr. Westcott has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Paul D. Westcott IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to Commission requests for information about his station. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-425A1.txt
    • he seeks cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. Mr. Salter, who asserts he is retired and living on Social Security and fixed retirement benefits, provided copies of his tax returns to support his claim. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Salter's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-433A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-433 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-433 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 7 O P n o P n o � � � �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-449A1.txt
    • sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $20,000 for BigZoo's failure to respond to a Commission communication as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that BigZoo.com Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-455A1.txt
    • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Midwest Televison, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-456A1.txt
    • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $25,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-457A1.txt
    • violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-475A1.txt
    • petitions for reconsideration of forfeiture orders) (2001) (``EZ Sacramento''), recon. dismissed, 16 FCC Rcd 15,605 (2001). Infinity Radio Operations, Inc., Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, filed September 4, 2003 (``NAL Response''). Id. at 2-3. Petition at 1-7. NAL Response at 3-4. Petition at 6-7. 47 U.S.C. � 504(c). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,102-04, �� 32-36 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Report and Order''); on recon., 15 FCC Rcd 303, 303-305, �� 3-5 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Reconsideration Order'') (collectively, the ``Forfeiture Policy Statement Rulemaking''). In the instant proceeding, Infinity did not mention the rulemaking disposition of this precise
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-480A1.txt
    • violations; it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture; it has no other violations of record; and as a small business, the fine is disproportionate to the size of its business. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining O'hana's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-480A1_Erratum.doc
    • violations; it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture; it has no other violations of record; and as a small business, the fine is disproportionate to the size of its business. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining O'hana's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-483A1.txt
    • reviewing Dead Air's response, and the specific record before us, we conclude that the proposed monetary forfeiture against Dead Air should be cancelled, and Dead Air should be admonished for its violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the proposed $3,000 forfeiture issued to Dead Air Broadcasting, Inc. IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dead Air Broadcasting, Inc., IS ADMONISHED for failure to register its tower. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Jo Ann Juliano, President, Dead
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-510A1.txt
    • on air radio personality to crisis hotline without prior notification of intent to broadcast, Bureau proposed base forfeiture amount for section 73.1206 violation notwithstanding licensee's claim that this was an ``isolated incident'' and that the licensee had taken remedial measures). See Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19744-45, � 6. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19745 & n. 17. Petition at 6-8. 47 U.S.C. � 504(c). See, e.g., Saga Communications of Iowa, Inc., Notices of Violation, EB-01-KC-228 to EB-01-KC-233 (Enf. Bur.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-52A1.txt
    • attorney, filed a petition for reconsideration (``petition'') of the Forfeiture Order. In the petition, Mrs. Ortiz does not contest the violations; however, she seeks reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order on the basis of financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mrs. Ortiz's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-534A1.txt
    • pursuing possible additional sanctions against Gerritsen. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, Jack Gerritsen's Petition for Reconsideration, filed November 2, 2004, IS HEREBY DENIED. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-59A1.txt
    • No. 200532080026 Facility ID No. 48975 FRN No. 0001716588 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 13, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that NOE Corp. LLC (``NOE''), licensee of Station KNOE-TV, Monroe, Louisiana, twice recorded telephone conversations for broadcast without informing parties to the calls of its intention to broadcast the conversations, in apparent willful and repeated violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the facts, we conclude that NOE
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-60A1.txt
    • No. 200532080027 Facility ID No. 59441 FRN No. 003957487 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 13, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company (``Scripps Howard''), licensee of Station WEWS-TV, Cleveland, Ohio, recorded a telephone conversation for broadcast and twice aired a portion of that recording without informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-613A1.txt
    • have no connection to the signal leakage violation. Finally, Mallard argues the Commission is barred from making a claim against the estate because ``the opportunity for asserting certain post-administrative expenses, those arising after May 9, 2003, expired on March 31, 2004.'' discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mallard's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-614A1.txt
    • 31, 2005. The Anchorage Resident Agent granted the extension of time until January 31, 2005. Coleman, however, has failed to file a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Chester P. Coleman c/o American Radio Brokers, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 73.1125(a) and (e), 73.1740(a)(1) and 73.1745(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-621A1.txt
    • pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, ARB, Inc. to report to the Enforcement Bureau, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order, whether it has achieved compliance with Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc., d/b/a/ Radio Station KFFR 1020, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.48(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 5. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, American Radio Brokers, Inc. must
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-624A1.txt
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14040, 14014, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-624 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-624 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ] h � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-634A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-634 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-634 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 E L Q r y ~ � � � � � � � � � 5 b � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-63A1.txt
    • Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14040, 14014, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. . See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-63 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-63 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) ' ( ) � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-680A1.txt
    • forfeiture in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. M.B. Communications filed a response to the NAL on August 31, 2004. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-68A1.txt
    • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14040, 14014, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-68 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-68 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 G H I J L Y Z c d e k w } ~  � � � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-702A1.txt
    • 21 times per day over a 10-week period. Therefore, we find that Leighton apparently violated section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly broadcasting station identification announcements that did not include the station's call letters immediately followed by the station's community of license. 5. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Leighton willfully and repeatedly broadcast station identification announcements in apparent violation of section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules. Section
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-703A1.txt
    • EB-03-IH-0742 NAL Account No. 200532080129 FRN No. 0005072467 Facility ID No. 35369 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 17, 2005 Released: March 17, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that KOFI, Inc. (``KOFI''), licensee of Station KZMN(FM), Kalispell, Montana, apparently willfully violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1206, by broadcasting, and recording for later broadcast, a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so. For the following reasons, based upon our
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-725A1.txt
    • ensuring that any material broadcast in a foreign language conforms to the requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules. To the extent that Caguas has overlooked its duties in this regard, we remind it to take appropriate care in the future to avoid further violations of this type. B. Proposed Action 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-729A1.txt
    • unable to obtain either a local or toll-free telephone number due to an ongoing dispute between the local telephone company and the tribe which owns the KRIT studio/transmitter site. Farmworker argues that, for these reasons, the NAL be rescinded and cancelled. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Farmworker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-78A1.txt
    • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 1995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 05-78 Federal Communications Commission DA 05-78 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-85A1.txt
    • the financial documentation provided, we conclude that payment of the proposed forfeiture would impose financial hardship on Mr. Goodman. In view of Mr. Goodman's extreme financial distress, cancellation of the $10,000 forfeiture assessment is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the September 14, 2004, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Milton Goodman IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Milton Goodman, 342
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-102A1.txt
    • York, and its attorney, James R. Cooke, Harris Beach, L.L.P., 1776 K Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau M.J. Phillips Communications, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 11051 (Enf. Bur. 2004). 47 C.F.R. �� 73.1560(a)(1), 11.35(a), 11.52(d) and 17.4(a). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D). See also note to Section 1.80(b)(4), Section II, Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures, Downward Adjustment Criteria. AM stations are required to maintain antenna input power levels ``as near as is practicable'' to, and not less than 90 percent or more than 105 percent of, their authorized power level. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.1560(a)(1). Station WJJL's antenna input power levels exceeded its authorized power limit of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1045A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Cibao Express. Cibao Express has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Cibao Express - Car & Limo Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. � 1.903(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1046A1.txt
    • less than other cases in which $4,000 forfeitures have been assessed. WTMR further describes its violation as a ``comparatively minor infraction'' and points to remedial efforts it has taken since the issuance of the NAL. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1084A1.txt
    • to Oneida Air Systems, Inc. (January 23, 2006). Response at 6. Id. Id. at 12. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an intentional radiator as ``a device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 15.19(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.21. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). It should be noted that unfamiliarity with the Act or Rules requirements does excuse past violations. See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc.� FCC 06-30 � 16 (rel. March 14, 2006); see also Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 � 5 (1993). Additionally, corrective measures taken after Commission notification, or initiation of investigation into, does not excuse past violations
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1091A1.txt
    • in the amount of $13,000 to El Dorado. Despite repeated contacts by the Los Angeles Office, El Dorado has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, El Dorado 900, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1109A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 64017 NAL/Acct. No. 0641420044 FRN: 0003865094 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 2, 2006 Released: June 6, 2006 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WDKY Licensee, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WDKY-TV, Danville, Kentucky (the ``Station''), apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required TV
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1110A1.txt
    • Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the above-captioned license renewal application of Springfield Broadcasting Partners (the ``Licensee'') for Station WRSP-TV, Springfield, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required TV issues/programs lists, records concerning its compliance with the children's programming commercial
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1111A1.txt
    • Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the above-captioned license renewal application of WDBB-TV, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for Station WDBB(TV), Bessemer, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(1), (e)(5), (e)(11)(i), and (e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file a copy of the current FCC authorization to operate the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1112A1.txt
    • Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the above-captioned license renewal application of WDKA Acquisition Corp. (the ``Licensee'') for Station WDKA(TV), Paducah, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1176A1.txt
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred following two extension requests by ITE of the required response deadline, repeated
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1189A1.txt
    • 2005, until January 10, 2006. By operating its earth station for approximately nine months without an instrument of authorization, Gilmore apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Gilmore also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1202A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Charles River Broadcasting WKPE License Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WKPE-FM, Orleans, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WKPE-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1203A1.txt
    • captioned application of the Des Moines Independent School District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for noncommercial educational Station KDPS(FM), Des Moines, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1204A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of RealRadio, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KRSN(AM), Los Alamos, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1205A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Best Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for FM translator Station W207BI, University Park, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1206A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Best Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for FM translator Station W206BI, Hamtramck, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1208A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Best Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for FM translator Station K217DP, Barker, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1210A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of David Ryder, Receiver (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of the expired license for Station WMEL(AM), Melbourne, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1211A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Urban Radio III, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KVTO(AM), Berkeley, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the KVTO(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.txt
    • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-122 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-122 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � h�Z -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.txt
    • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-124 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-124 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1267A1.txt
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Universal's failures to respond occurred despite Bureau staff's repeated attempts to call Universal's attention to the importance of responding to the LOI. We find that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1286A1.txt
    • WRUM(FM) ) FRN No. 0001587971 Orlando, Florida ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 16, 2006 Released: June 20, 2006 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WRUM(FM), Orlando, Florida, broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1298A1.txt
    • the United States Postal Service, and by hand by the Idaho County Sheriff's Department. Despite these contacts, Scrugham has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, William W. Scrugham, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1304A1.txt
    • not ``include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement or constitute a telephone solicitation''; 4) to persons ``with whom the caller has an established business relationship at the time the call is made''; and 5) ``made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.'' The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining ESI's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such matters as justice may require. ESI
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1324A1.txt
    • 3, deploying unauthorized 98 cm antennas, violated the Commission's two degree spacing policy and thereby creates the potential for causing interference. Thus, all three modifications affected the parameters or terms and conditions of AGF's authorizations. Therefore, AGF's failure to obtain prior Commission approval before implementing the modifications violated Section 25.117(a) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1325A1.txt
    • irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission ....'' A violation resulting from an inadvertent mistake or a failure to become familiar with the FCC's requirements is considered a willful violation. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1328A1.txt
    • rules; and that the Commission's licensing scheme for low power FM radio stations is ``egregiously unconstitutional.'' 916 Radio also states that it does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture and requests that the forfeiture be reduced or cancelled. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-132A1.txt
    • 12, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Inteligain. Inteligain has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Inteligain Corporation, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1330A1.txt
    • transmission equipment was at all times fully operational; that the station had most of the required logging slips; and that if someone had not ``jostled loose'' the plug on the EAS receiver, the station would have been in full compliance. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1332A1.txt
    • determine that Brazos willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules based on its admission that issues/programs lists were destroyed during a studio move in 2002 and that these lists could not be recreated. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Brazos' Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1333A1.txt
    • by the Licensee to EMF (the ``Assignment Application''); and (3) the application of EMF for a construction permit to modify the station's technical facilities (the ``Modification Application''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309 and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules, by failing to operate substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of its license. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1334A1.txt
    • transceivers are not CB transceivers. Specifically, TravelCenters argues that the Galaxy transceivers are not covered by the Commission's definition of CB transmitter, and that the Commision's effort to clarify this definition was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (``APA''). III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-136A1.txt
    • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ramsey marketed two models of unauthorized broadcast transmitters (FM35WT and FM100BWT) and two models of unauthorized external RF power amplifiers (PA100 and LPA1WT). Ramsey's marketing of each of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-136A1_Erratum.doc
    • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ramsey marketed two models of unauthorized broadcast transmitters (FM35WT and FM100BWT) and two models of unauthorized external RF power amplifiers (PA100 and LPA1WT). Ramsey's marketing of each of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.txt
    • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1430 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1430 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � h gd -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.txt
    • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1431 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1431 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 r t � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1432A1.txt
    • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1432 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1432 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ` � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.txt
    • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1433 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1433 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - - � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1436A1.txt
    • Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4) defines marketing as the ``sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1436 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1436 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 � 2 � � � � � )� � `��gdx � � � � � � � � � � � hx h � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1437A1.txt
    • are unable to consider Mr. Desinor's petition for reconsideration and it will be dismissed as untimely. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Act and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, Jhony Desinor's petition for reconsideration IS DISMISSED as untimely. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check, money order or similar instrument, payable to the order of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1442A1.txt
    • for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that AboCom's conduct has continued over a period that began on May 12, 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to AboCom's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-144A1.txt
    • (``Boston Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Simon. Simon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Sylvane Simon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1458A1.txt
    • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Jesse C. Ross and Ernestine A. Ross, licensee of Station WSAO(AM), in Senatobia, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1459A1.txt
    • in this case. Specifically, we conclude that the violation occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive or to favor a particular contestant or class of contestants. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that NM Licensing, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, NM Licensing, LLC
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1467A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1467 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1467 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1488A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the March 24, 2006, request of Frank J. Neely (``Neely''), for waiver of the post-auction Form 301 ``long form'' application filing deadline. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Neely apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a post-auction Form 301 application. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that Neely is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1498A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of South Atlanta Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WSSA(AM), Morrow, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file its license renewal application, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1499A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of John Reynolds (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W267AD, Bryson City, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1500A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Capstar TX Limited Partnership (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHJJ(AM), Providence, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WHJJ(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1501A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of the College of the Holy Cross (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCHC(FM), Worcester, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WCHC(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1502A1.txt
    • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Emerson College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WERS(FM), Boston, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WERS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1503A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Davidson Media Station WXCT Licensee, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WXCT(AM), Southington, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WXCT(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1504A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Rose City Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WWZN(AM), Boston, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WWZN(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1505A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Baker University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNBU(FM), Baldwin City, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KNBU(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we:
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1536A1.txt
    • Order, we dismiss its Petition. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Arcom Communications' Petition for Reconsideration of the December 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order IS hereby DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1537A1.txt
    • April 25, 2006, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to New Life. New Life filed a response to the NAL dated May 25, 2006. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining New Life's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1564A1.txt
    • 26, 2005, until May 26, 2006. By operating its earth station for one year without an instrument of authorization, Lazer apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Lazer also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1604A1.txt
    • findings in the Forfeiture Order, but seeks a remission or reduction of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay. In support of this request, M.B. Communications submits its tax returns for the past three years. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.B. Communications' petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1605A1.txt
    • against him is preemptive, unauthorized and unconstitutional since the Commission has not responded to his request for emergency authority; that his Constitutional rights are being infringed; and that no court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Commission's forfeiture procedures. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Britcher's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1606A1.txt
    • against him is preemptive, unauthorized and unconstitutional since the Commission has not responded to his request for emergency authority; that his Constitutional rights are being infringed; and that no court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Commission's forfeiture procedures. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Duncan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1607A1.txt
    • or a Telecommunication Certification Body, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. � 2.907. Keymark was issued a certification for the PC Defender Screen Lock on December 23, 2003 under FCC ID: PG8KW101T. Keymark was issued a certification for the Wireless Separation Alarm on June 3, 2002 under FCC ID: PG8101T01. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 9 < = W X Y \ _ j r v � � ' � - - � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1646A1.txt
    • omissions are committed knowingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Intelsat apparently provided to the Commission in conjunction with its August 17, 2005, Fleet Management Notice material factual information that was incorrect and/or misleading without having a reasonable basis for making the representations contained therein, in violation of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentations or lack of candor is the statutory maximum or, in this case, $11,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1650A1.txt
    • On June 5, 2006, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Gilmore. Gilmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gilmore Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 25.102(a) and 25.121(e) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1665A1.txt
    • initially attempted to inspect it and who came to the transmitter shed only after the agent contacted him. This minimal presence clearly did not satisfy the requirement for a meaningful presence at the main studio. We affirm, therefore, the Forfeiture Order's determination that Evangelism violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules. Downward Adjustment Factors Background The Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules permit downward adjustment of forfeitures on the basis of a minor violation, good faith or voluntary disclosure, history of overall compliance or inability pay as well as other factors within the discretion of the Commission and its staff. Discussion a. History of Overall Compliance Evangelism again seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture by arguing that as
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1666A1.txt
    • the San Diego Office's NAL, were done in reliance on this advice and therefore the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled. Kojo attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1667A1.txt
    • not attach the report required by the San Diego Office concerning the location of its transmitter. Review of the Commission's records reveals that Anderson filed an application to modify the WQCT534 license by amending the coordinates of the transmitter location. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1668A1.txt
    • San Diego Office's NAL, were done in reliance on this advice and therefore the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled. More Enterprises attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1669A1.txt
    • should be cancelled. Uniradio attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001, along with an STA request filed by its counsel for another 23 GHz cross-border operator in 2001. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1670A1.txt
    • and it is dismissed as untimely. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Act and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS DISMISSED as untimely. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1673A1.txt
    • and, therefore, the NAL should be cancelled. Krieger also argues that it did not knowingly cause the transmissions to be repeated. Finally, Krieger asserts that it corrected the error as soon as it was notified by the San Diego Office. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1674A1.txt
    • and, therefore, the NAL should be cancelled. Lamkin also argues that it did not knowingly cause the transmissions to be repeated. Finally, Lamkin asserts that it corrected the error as soon as it was notified by the San Diego Office. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1694A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1694 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1694 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 w y }  � � � � w -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1697A1.txt
    • to pay does not provide adequate financial documentation. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(j) of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. d/b/a/ Hobbytron.com, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., d/b/a Hobbytron.com, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1717A1.txt
    • the Tampa Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,000 to Brasfield & Gorrie. Brasfield & Gorrie filed a response to the NAL dated March 23, 2006. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Brasfield & Gorrie's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1720A1.txt
    • Rules, that the Petition for Extension of Time to file an Application for Review and the Petition for Acceptance of Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Lotus Communications Corporation, ARE DENIED, and the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Lotus Communications Corporation IS DISMISSED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Lotus Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, 17.48 and 17.49 of the Rules. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1726A1.txt
    • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with prerecorded sales message to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1726 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1726 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 s v s u {  � � � � 4v y -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1731A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1731 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1731 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � tm - tm � � � � � � 2tm -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1732A1.txt
    • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1732 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1732 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 z z | ... � � � " � � 4z } � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1753A1.txt
    • Order whether it had achieved compliance with Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. In a timely-filed request for reconsideration, FFP notified the Commission that the tower had been demolished on September 14, 2004, and it further requested that the Forfeiture Order be reconsidered. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1754A1.txt
    • deny the violations, states that it has made efforts to correct the violations, and requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture due to its ``spotless track record'' and ``many years of untarnished service.'' III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining 127 Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1783A1.txt
    • for Reconsideration,'' and dated November 4, 2004, and December 4, 2004 (``Petitions''). Both Petitions requested reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. Mr. Konarz's Petitions acknowledged all of the violations and stated that they had been corrected. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Konarz's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1785A1.txt
    • of Pacnet be turned over to Kremen. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, neither Pacnet, nor Kremen, has filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacnet Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1786A1.txt
    • of Pacnet be turned over to Kremen. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, neither Pacnet, nor Kremen, has filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacnet Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1889A1.txt
    • application of Cobb Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K261AO, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and K230BY, Kuparuk, Alaska (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1890A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Valley Air, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KVLR(FM), Twisp, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the KVLR(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1891A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Geneva Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WGVA(AM), Geneva, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WGVA(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1892A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Canandaigua Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WCGR(AM), Canandaigua, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WCGR(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1893A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Rose City Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNR(AM), Jersey City, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSNR(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1894A1.txt
    • the captioned application of the Board of Trustees, Davis & Elkins College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCDE(FM), Elkins, West Virginia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1895A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Lehigh Carbon Community College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WXLV(FM), Schnecksville, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WXLV(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1897A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of William L. Bonner (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WKBY(AM), Chatham, Virginia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1921A1.txt
    • MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: September 26, 2006 Released: September 27, 2006 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that New Northwest Broadcasters LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations KFAT(FM), Anchorage, Alaska; KRPM(FM), Houston, Alaska; and KDBZ(FM), Anchorage, Alaska (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1), 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3) and 73.2080(c)(5)(iii) of the Rules by
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1929A1.txt
    • On October 9, 2005, West Coast submitted a response to the NAL requesting the ability to pay the forfeiture in installments. West Coast, however, failed to submit its good faith payment and its request for an installment payment plan was denied. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining West Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1930A1.txt
    • operation. On May 3, 2006, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $11,000 to Hacienda. Hacienda filed a response to the NAL dated June 1, 2006. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Hacienda's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1933A1.txt
    • of the radios offered for sale in its catalog, along with a copy of its catalog, and states that it has taken efforts to ensure that both its inventory of radios, and its catalog, comply with the Commission's labeling requirements. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1934A1.txt
    • state-wide EAS system has been used infrequently, and that this infrequent use does not support the severity of the proposed forfeiture. Finally, the Petersons state that since the NAL was released, they have purchased and installed EAS equipment for KBSZ(AM). III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1935A1.txt
    • forfeiture and, to support this claim, supplies three years of tax records. Finally, if a forfeiture is imposed, Craig asks for a personal interview and/or a hearing with a Commission official at the nearest field office to discuss the NAL. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Craig's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1936A1.txt
    • of $21,000, because ``Loves' continuing violations of the equipment authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules.'' On March 9, 2006, Loves submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Loves' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1941A1.txt
    • response to the NAL on May 15, 2006. Renda does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests a reduction in the forfeiture amount based on its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1942A1.txt
    • January 17, 2006, requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on their inability to pay and the fact that they have ceased operating the station. They do not otherwise dispute the findings in the NAL. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1943A1.txt
    • inspection on March 16, 2005; and (3) Trap Rock's history of compliance. Trap Rock also reports in its response to the NAL that the painting of the antenna structure was completed on September 16, 2005. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1978A1.txt
    • repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. In its response to the NAL, WSMN claims that the proposed forfeiture should be rescinded because WSMN is not the owner of the antenna structures at issue. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1979A1.txt
    • Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the above-captioned license renewal application of WNJX-TV, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for Station WNJX-TV, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's Television Programming Reports. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1981A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 2370 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420001 FRN: 0003773553 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 28, 2006 Released: December 29, 2006 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Alpha Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WSVI(TV), Christiansted, Virgin Islands (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539(a) of the Rules by failing to file the Station's license renewal application in a timely manner. Based
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2018A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Deroux. Deroux has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,Shawn Deroux IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2019A1.txt
    • ``[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The 1.2 GHz wireless camera purposely transmits RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2019 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2019 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 O P # M O T j z � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2040A1.txt
    • in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. On December 23, 2005, the Norfolk Office received TC's response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining TC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-204A1.txt
    • $10,000 forfeiture for Mr. Saunders' violation of Section 17.51 of the Rules. On January 5, 2005, Mr. Saunders filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, which he supplemented on February 15, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Saunders' petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2063A1.txt
    • contacted appropriate agencies, completed the required documentation, and instituted new policies to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met before it constructs any new communications facilities. After receiving Panhandle's LOI response, the WTB referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. III. DISCUSSION Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2065A1.txt
    • that, after the company realized its error, it contacted appropriate state and federal agencies, completed the required documentation, and provided further environmental training for its staff. After receiving T-Mobile's LOI response, the WTB referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. III. DISCUSSION Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-206A1.txt
    • for approvals to dismantle the towers and would continue to update the Commission on its progress in curing the violation. On August 3, 2005, Cumulus informed the Enforcement Bureau that it had completed demolition of the subject towers on July 22, 2005. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Cumulus Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2077A1.txt
    • term "repeated" means that the action was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.19 Based on the evidence before us, we find that C5 Communications willfully and repeatedly used a fictitious name to certify to the accuracy of information in an application, in violation of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentations or lack of candor to the Commission is the statutory maximum, or, in this case, eleven thousand dollars ($11,000).21 Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2084A1.txt
    • related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages identified above. We have further determined that 1 Home Lending Corporation d.b.a. Capital Line Financial, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that 1 Home Lending Corporation d.b.a. Capital Line Financial, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of an APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-20A1.txt
    • that he has never operated an unlicensed station on that frequency in Philadelphia, PA. He further states that nothing has ever been found at his house and there could be radio stations operating somewhere else in the vicinity of his house. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-220A1.txt
    • assessed. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Alltel has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Alltel apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Alltel IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2210A1.txt
    • was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that E-DA-HOE failed to properly broadcast station identification information, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules. The statutory maximum forfeiture amount for each apparent violation in this case is $27,500. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the station identification rule is $1,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-221A1.txt
    • assessed. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that AT&T has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find AT&T apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, AT&T IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2229A1.txt
    • wireless system did not violate the Section 302(b) of the Act or Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules, and that, if there is basis for a monetary forfeiture, the amount proposed by the NAL is excessive. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2259A1.txt
    • October 25, 2005, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to A Radio. A Radio filed a response to the NAL dated January 11, 2006. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2273A1.txt
    • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 1.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.108, we hereby reconsider and amend, on our own motion, the October 13, 2006, Forfeiture Order, as explained herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shawn Deroux IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2286A1.txt
    • On July 17, 2006, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $25,000 to AboCom. AboCom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, AboCom Systems, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2288A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Colon. Mr. Colon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Carlos M. Colon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2289A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Guzman. Mr. Guzman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Raul Guzman Reyes IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2290A1.txt
    • in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. On October 13, 2006, the Tampa Office received CSN's response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining CSN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2301A1.txt
    • 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Spectracom, LLC apparently willfully violated Section 1.948 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify and receive approval from the Commission for the assignment of three licenses prior to consummation of the transaction. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for engaging in an unauthorized transfer of substantial control of a licensee is $8,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2308A1.txt
    • expiration date of April 5, 2006 and June 9, 2006. By operating its earth stations without authorization, Twin Cities apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Twin Cities also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its licenses to lapse without renewal. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2337A1.txt
    • By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 15 months without an instrument of authorization, Hare Planting apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Hare Planting also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2341A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio One Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WKAF(FM), Brockton, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WKAF(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2342A1.txt
    • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Roberto Feliz (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station KRRP(AM), Coushatta, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2343A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned applications of WRBX/WTNL, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for Stations WRBX(FM) and WTNL(AM), Reidsville, Georgia (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal applications for the Stations, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Stations after
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2344A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Detroit Public Schools (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WRCJ-FM, Detroit, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1943 and 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WRCJ-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2345A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Mountain Mist Media, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WTKI(AM), Huntsville, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2346A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of WVRM, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WDDM(FM), Hazlet, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WDDM(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2347A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Fort Stanton, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KEDU-LP, Ruidoso, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2348A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Alan Towle (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station K232BE, Wausau, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2349A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Morgan County Industries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WMOR(AM), Morehead, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating the Station at an unauthorized location. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2350A1.txt
    • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2351A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of New Northwest Broadcasters, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KCRX-FM, Seaside, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KCRX-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2354A1.txt
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at �5. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2354 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2354 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � 5 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2380A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Regent Licensee of Chico, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K300AD, Chico, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2389A1.txt
    • acres and employs approximately 1,245 employees. Finally, Domtar stated that it ``has a small, fiscally tight operating budget,'' that its 900 MHz equipment ``currently cannot technically operate at bands below 900 MHz,'' and that it ``does not have excess funds in which to invest in purchasing a new PLMRS system.'' III. DISCUSSION Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2453A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Infinity Radio Holdings Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W272AT, Columbus, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2454A1.txt
    • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of MVB, Inc., (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WWGC(AM) Albertville, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2455A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of College Wesleyan Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCWC-LP, Marion, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2472A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Venters. Mr. Venters has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Adam Troy Venters IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2473A1.txt
    • Orleans Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $13,000 to Patrick. Patrick has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violation of Sections 17.4(a), 17.50, and 17.51 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2479A1.txt
    • response to the NAL, GI Joe's does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation or reduction based on an inability to pay. In support of the request, GI Joe's submitted federal income tax returns. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2480A1.txt
    • to the NAL on September 28, 2006. In his response, Parks does not dispute the factual findings in the NAL, but requests a cancellation or reduction in the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2497A1.txt
    • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, iBuypower marketed two unauthorized computer systems, one featuring the AMD Athlon-64 processor and one featuring the Athlon-64 X2 processor. iBuypower's marketing of each unauthorized computer system is a
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2499A1.txt
    • Communications Commission, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 22, 2006), at 1. Id. at 4. MSSI indicated, however, that the radio frequency identification tags utilized in the system, which are intentional radiators subject to the equipment certification requirements, were certified prior to marketing of the system. Id. at 2. Id. at 1. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2499 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2499 # + < = B I W a f � � � � � � (c) � � � h h h h � $ � + �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2537A1.txt
    • the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On October 20, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received TC's petition for reconsideration on November 20, 2006, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining TC's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2549A1.txt
    • 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. As discussed more fully below, Gambler filed a response to the NAL, seeking cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2553A1.txt
    • Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Conrad. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Conrad has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Alan M. Conrad, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2554A1.txt
    • Office in contacting CRC, that CRC fully cooperated with the Los Angeles Office in determining the reasons for the failures of the lighting on antenna structure #1019247, and that CRC has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining CRC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2579A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of WBCE, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WBCE(AM), Wickliffe, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2588A1.txt
    • at one point in time had a license for 856.3625 MHz at another site in the same Las Vegas market; that the operation at the unauthorized location caused no known interference; and because of ESP's history of FCC rule compliance. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining ESP's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-290A1.txt
    • amended (``the Act''), provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully fails to comply with any provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must also consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-301A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee concedes that the station's TV issues/programs lists for the first through the fourth quarters of 2003, and the first quarter of 2004 through the second quarter of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-307A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation. On the other hand, records concerning commercial limits for one year were missing from the station's public inspection file. Considering the record as
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-308A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation. On the other hand, required documents for five quarters were missing from the public inspection file. Considering the record as a whole, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-323A1.txt
    • the remaining violations, however, JMK does dispute the Bureau's interpretation of a pertinent question asked by the Columbia Office in the LOI and JMK's response thereto, as well as the Bureau's handling of Mr. Hammond's declaration. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining JMK's petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-326A1.txt
    • map, ``Public and Broadcasting'' manual (``manual'') and certain issues/programs lists. On April 18, 2003, the Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), proposing a $4,000 forfeiture against Lebanon for its apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules. The proposed forfeiture amount was downwardly adjusted from the $10,000 base forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules because the ``public inspection file contained a portion of the required items.'' In a May 9, 2003, response to the NAL (``Response''), Lebanon sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Lebanon claimed that the contour map and manual were in the public inspection file but not shown to the agent, because the station employee who was present throughout
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-369A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation and instituted measures to prevent its recurrence. Nevertheless, TV issues/programs lists for four quarters were missing from the public file. Considering the record
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-370A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. As explained above, the licensee has failed to comply with Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. We note also that this violation apparently continued throughout the license term. Specifically, it indicates that it
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-386A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 for violation of the children's television commercialization requirements. However, an upward adjustment is appropriate in this case. As discussed above, WTWB-TV exceeded the children's television commercial limits on seven occasions, all of which were program-length commercials.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-404A1.txt
    • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement) and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, the licensee has corrected the violation. On the other hand, required documents for four quarters were missing from the public inspection file. Considering the record as a whole, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-410A1.txt
    • (``Boston Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Marius. Marius has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean Harold Marius IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-474A1.txt
    • in the amount of $10,000 to Pacific Spanish. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Pacific Spanish has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacific Spanish Network, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating a microwave radio station in Chula Vista, California, without a license, in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-476A1.txt
    • Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to ICB. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, ICB has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, International Customs Brokers, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating station WNTT908, in San Diego, California, on an unauthorized channel, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-497A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Shenzhen Ruidian Communication. Shenzhen Ruidian Communication has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Shenzhen Ruidian Communication Co. Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau to provide certain information and documents. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-500A1.txt
    • station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. We believe that, consistent with Commission precedent, a forfeiture, rather than designation for evidentiary hearing, is the appropriate sanction for the violation of Section 73.3526 in this case. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-53A1.txt
    • (``Response''). In his Response, Mollinedo states that he received bad advice from an associate regarding the need for a license to operate and that since he received the NAL, he no longer operates the radio equipment and has destroyed it. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mollinedo's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-543A1.txt
    • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, KLFY, L.P. acknowledges that the station's 2003 Biennial Ownership Report and records concerning compliance with commercial limits on children's programming for several quarters had not been prepared and placed in the public inspection file. Moreover, it appears that KLFY, L.P. did not discover
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-544A1.txt
    • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In this case, Media General concedes that the station's records concerning compliance with commercial limits in children's programming and Children's Television Programming Reports for 1997 through 2002 were not retained in the public inspection file. Moreover, it appears that Media General did not discover these deficiencies
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-562A1.txt
    • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Elf's willful or repeated violation of Section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Elf Painting and Wallpapering SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-587A1.txt
    • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-587 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-587 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) * , - + , � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-591A1.txt
    • FCC certification. As previously noted, on January 18, 2006, OleumTech obtained an equipment authorization from the Commission. In the instant case, we find that OleumTech apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator device prior to obtaining Commission equipment authorization. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-606A1.txt
    • 1, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to Gibson. Gibson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-640A1.txt
    • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations and a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 for violation of the children's television commercial limits. In this case, you concede that you failed to prepare and place in the station's public file TV issues/programs lists for numerous quarters. As a result, the public file was not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-655A1.txt
    • receive fax advertising). The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-655 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-655 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-663A1.txt
    • Baxter's apparent liability for violating Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules by transmitting references to his website could subject many amateur radio licensees to similar enforcement action merely for uttering a website address on their stations. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-664A1.txt
    • NAL on February 14, 2005 (``Response''). In the Response, Alpine states that the NAL is unenforceable against Alpine, and that the agent's assessments of the station's main studio were not consistent with the facts at the time of the inspection. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Alpine's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-749A1.txt
    • any person.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1601(e)(i). The rule's requirements are also fulfilled if the caller identification information substitutes the name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service telephone number. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 1601(e)(i). 47 C.F.R. � 1601(e)(ii). 47 C.F.R. � 1601(e)(iii). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-749 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-749 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-74A1.txt
    • any person.'' 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(7). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1601(e)(i). The rule's requirements are also fulfilled if the caller identification information substitutes the name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service telephone number. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 1601(e)(i). 47 C.F.R. � 1601(e)(ii). 47 C.F.R. � 1601(e)(iii). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-74 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-74 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-754A1.txt
    • Moreover, we find that these violations, when considered together, do not evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that Station KSLO(AM) served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant KBC's license renewal application below. Conclusion/Actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, KBC is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-755A1.txt
    • Moreover, we find no evidence of violations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that Station K240CJ served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant the captioned license renewal application. Conclusion/Actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, OCCB is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $1,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 with respect to Station K240CJ. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, OCCB SHALL PAY to the United States the full
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-756A1.txt
    • throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-758A1.txt
    • obfuscate the true state of affairs with respect to its public inspection files and to avoid the Commission scrutiny which a ``No'' response would have elicited. We admonish the Licensee for its manner of responding to Section III, Item 3 of each renewal form. Proposed Forfeiture. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-759A1.txt
    • Inc. We find that Rogers and Clarion are fully qualified to sell and acquire, respectively, the license for WYXC(AM) and that the grant of the application would further the public interest, convenience and necessity. We will, therefore, grant the application for assignment below. Conclusion/Actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Rogers Communications, Inc. is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Notice, Rogers
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-798A1.txt
    • WLTH does not dispute its Rule violations but argues that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because it is now in compliance with the Rules and is unable to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the WLTH petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-841A1.txt
    • without Commission authority - from November 8, 2001 to January 11, 2006. Thus, it appears that NWN violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-853A1.txt
    • reduction or cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture. Hawking argues that the upward adjustment proposed in the NAL is excessive, that it promptly remedied the violations and that it has a history of overall compliance. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-861A1.txt
    • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Vitec marketed an intercom system that includes two types of uncertified transmitters (base station and mobile). Vitec's marketing of each uncertified transmitter is a separate violation. We find
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-867A1.txt
    • No. 200632080152 Facility ID No. 11909 FRN No. 0001587971 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 19, 2006 Released: April 20, 2006 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), licensee of Station WAWS(TV), Jacksonville, Florida, failed to conduct its ``Win A Hot Rod for Dad'' contest (the ``Contest'') substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, it appears that, contrary to the official announced rules of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-916A1.txt
    • $100,000 is warranted. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses We have determined that Cbeyond has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Cbeyond apparently liable for $100,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Cbeyond IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order, by failing to prepare and make available upon request a certificate that complies
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-933A1.txt
    • single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Unicom's failures to respond occurred despite multiple attempts by Bureau staff to call Unicom's attention to the importance of responding to LOIs. We find that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-936A1.txt
    • (``Buffalo Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Corry. Corry has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Corry Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. � 11.35(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-937A1.txt
    • PSAP in October 1999. Moreover, the record indicates, and Lamar does not dispute, that it did not transmit the required data (both the 911 caller's call back number and the cell site location) and thus did not provide compliant E911 Phase I service within six months of the Texas CSEC's valid request. Under Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, any entity that willfully and repeatedly fails to comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator consciously and deliberately acted or failed to act, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's requirements,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-94A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,500 to GB Enterprises. GB Enterprises filed a response to the NAL on September 4, 2005, stating that it had corrected the violations cited in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining GB Enterprises' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-996A1.txt
    • without an instrument of authorization, Criswell apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Criswell also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by filing its license renewal application on December 7, 2005, more than eighteen months beyond the 30-day requirement prescribed by the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-999A1.txt
    • the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,600 to OleumTech. OleumTech has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, OleumTech Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1044A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned applications of Down Home Broadcasting (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for Stations WCOX(AM) and WYVC(FM), Camden, Alabama (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Stations
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1045A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Greenville College Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WGRN(FM), Greenville, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1046A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Illinois Valley Radio (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WDUK(FM), Havana, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1047A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Gateway Technical College (``Gateway'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WGTD(FM) Kenosha, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1048A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Best Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W206BL, Mount Prospect, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1049A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of the Trustees, Carroll College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WCCX(FM), Waukesha, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1050A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Hawkins Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WWHN(AM), Joliet, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1051A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Del Matthew Reynolds (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W247AC, Green Bay, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1058A1.txt
    • Account No. 200732080020 Facility ID No. 72172 FRN No. 0011339769 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2007 Released: March 6, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that RCK 1 Group, LLC (the ``Licensee''), Licensee of Station WKKX(AM) Wheeling, West Virginia, (the ``Station'') apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by broadcasting a live telephone conversation without giving prior notice to the individual being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on review of the facts and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1073A1.txt
    • Furthermore, we do not find this to be a reasonable excuse for the Station's failure to provide access to the public inspection file. To condone excuses such as this one would render the public inspection process meaningless. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that the Station apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Commission's rules. Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In its LOI Response, Gaston College requests that if the Bureau determines that a violation occurred, it impose an admonishment rather than a forfeiture. In support of this request, Gaston College cites Tabback Broadcasting and American Family Association, each an admonishment against a radio station
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-109A1.txt
    • Sadowski, Esq., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, February 27, 2006. Media Bureau Announces Certain Revisions to Instructions to Form 303-S - Application for Renewal of License for Broadcast Stations, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 8986 (2003). 47 C.F.R. �73.1206. Univision Radio License Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 888 (2005)(forfeiture paid). 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(4). See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997) recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). The Commission may adjust the base forfeiture as a result of its consideration of the factors listed in 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1246A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Charles E. Jones, Jr. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for Station WVFG(FM), Uniontown, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1247A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Knox College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVKC(FM), Galesburg, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1248A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bhagwan Dadlani (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W300AN, Montgomery, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-124A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bowdoin College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBOR(FM), Brunswick, Maine (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file its license renewal application, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1271A1.txt
    • an equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Mann admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that The Antique Radio Collector apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1285A1.txt
    • 11, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 20 months without an instrument of authorization, Imperial apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Imperial also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1300A1.txt
    • (``Norfolk Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to TPN. TPN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, The Paradise Network of North Carolina, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Sections 17.57 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1301A1.txt
    • Orleans Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Ace. Ace has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ace Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1312A1.txt
    • or cancelled because the amount exceeds other forfeiture amounts proposed to broadcast stations under similar scenarios; that KM TV has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that KM TV has demonstrated an inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining KM TV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1313A1.txt
    • May 4, 2006, stating he was unable to obtain a copy of the catalog referenced in the NAL from Commission staff and argues that the refusal to provide him a copy of the catalog was a denial of due process. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Vance's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1315A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 11951 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420021 FRN: 0001587971 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 19, 2007 Released: March 21, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KLRT-TV, Little Rock, Arkansas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1316A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 41212 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420002 FRN: 0001587971 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 19, 2007 Released: March 21, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KASN(TV), Pine Bluff, Arkansas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1317A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 24485 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420015 FRN: 0008120529 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 19, 2007 Released: March 21, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that University Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KGEB(TV), Tulsa, Oklahoma (the ``Station''), apparently violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. Based upon our
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1344A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Faith Bible College, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WTGF(FM), Milton, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1345A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Metz, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WTCL(AM), Chattahoochee, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1346A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Newman Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WDSR(AM), Lake City, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1347A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Big Sky Owners Association, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257AE, West Fork, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1348A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of WPW Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WLBK(AM), DeKalb, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WLBK(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1375A1.txt
    • for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $11,000 to Community. Community submitted a late-filed response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the forfeiture, which was received by the Dallas Office on March 22, 2007. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Community's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1378A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Robert C. Blakes Enterprises, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KKNO(AM), Gretna, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1379A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of The Master's Mission (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W212AB, Robbinsville, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1380A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of John P. Reynolds (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W266AC, Blairsville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1381A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of The Florida Institute of Technology (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WFIT(FM), Melbourne, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1382A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Mississippi Valley State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVSD(FM), Itta Bena, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1383A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 82698 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420025 FRN: 0006383087 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 23, 2007 Released: April 25, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Channel 11 License, Inc., (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KRII(TV), Chisholm, Minnesota (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to file with the Commission, place in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1384A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 51189 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420027 FRN: 0003472917 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 23, 2007 Released: April 25, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KBWB License, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KBWB(TV), San Francisco, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1385A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35594 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420026 FRN: 0001537935 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 23, 2007 Released: April 25, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KSEE License, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSEE(TV), Fresno, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1386A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 23960 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420024 FRN: 0001842863 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2007 Released: April 30, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WSB-TV Holdings, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WSB-TV, Atlanta, Georgia (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1407A1.txt
    • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Amp'd Mobile, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Amp'd Mobile, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1408A1.txt
    • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that KLM has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find KLM apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KLM IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1409A1.txt
    • CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Easterbrooke Cellular has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Easterbrooke Cellular apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1410A1.txt
    • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Key has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Key apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1411A1.txt
    • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that HBC has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find HBC apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Hiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1412A1.txt
    • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that CTC has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find CTC apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CTC Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1413A1.txt
    • 10. We have determined that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1414A1.txt
    • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that PriorityOne has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1415A1.txt
    • 10. We have determined that Oneida County Rural Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain an adequate compliance statement in accordance with the rule. We find Oneida apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Oneida County Rural Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1416A1.txt
    • CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Keystone Wireless has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Keystone Wireless apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Keystone Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1417A1.txt
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. 1st United's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 1st United will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1419A1.txt
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Burke's Garden's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Burke's Garden will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1420A1.txt
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Connect's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Connect will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1421A1.txt
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Habla's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Habla will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1422A1.txt
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Manning's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Manning will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1423A1.txt
    • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. PhoneCo's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. PhoneCo will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1433A1.txt
    • By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 5 years without an instrument of authorization, Mitchell Electric apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Mitchell Electric also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1436A1.txt
    • Rules, that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, that it took steps to ensure that it came into compliance with Rules after the inspection by the Los Angeles agent and, consequently, the NAL should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1439A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Cumberland Communities Communications Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WDVX(FM), Clinton, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WDVX(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1440A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Journal Broadcast Corporation (``the Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KFAQ(AM), Tulsa, Oklahoma, (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the KFAQ(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1441A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio One Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WFUN-FM, Bethalto, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WFUN-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1442A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of the Spring Arbor University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W258AH, Kalamazoo, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1443A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Canaan Communications Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WQSE(AM), White Bluff, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1444A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KTCN(FM), Eureka Springs, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1451A1.txt
    • without Commission authorization from October 27, 2005, to May 2, 2006. By operating its earth station for approximately six months without authorization, DirecTV apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. DirecTV also apparently violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1452A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 68717 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420004 FRN: 0003710407 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2007 Released: April 30, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Rocky Mountain Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KMTF(TV), Helena, Montana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the station's public inspection file
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1453A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35823 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420032 FRN: 0004499273 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 23, 2007 Released: April 25, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KUTV Holdings, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KUTV(TV), Salt Lake City, Utah (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1454A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 26025 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420006 FRN: 0008327744 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2007 Released: April 30, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that ACME Television Licenses of Madison, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WBUW(TV), Janesville, Wisconsin (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1456A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 16363 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420005 FRN: 0000013383 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2007 Released: April 30, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that ACME Television Licenses of Illinois, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WBUI(TV), Decatur, Illinois (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1458A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35464 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420031 FRN: 0005877758 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 23, 2007 Released: April 25, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Meredith Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KFXO-LP, Bend, Oregon (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and (e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1472A1.txt
    • he did not intentionally violate the Rules, and that he took steps after the issuance of the Notice, and again after the issuance of the NAL, to ensure that the operation of the ELT was in compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1473A1.txt
    • 30, 2006 (``Response''). Based on our review of Amaturo's Response and the record, we find that Amaturo did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) issued to Amaturo Group of L.A., Ltd., in the May 31, 2006, Notice of Apparent Liability for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1477A1.txt
    • to broadcast stations with partially complete public inspection files; that Una Vez has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that Una Vez took steps to correct the violation after the inspection by a Los Angeles Office agent. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Una Vez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1478A1.txt
    • visibility. Entravision filed a response (``Response'') on July 4, 2006, arguing that the antenna structure is not required to be painted, and that that the top white strobe light on the structure had not been experiencing malfunctions since August 2005. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1479A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of the University of Southern Mississippi (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WUSM-FM, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized operation of the Station
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1480A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KBPB(FM), Harrison, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1481A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Marion R. Williams (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WONG(AM), Canton, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1482A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Junior Lahens Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1486A1.txt
    • the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Parker submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Parker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1548A1.txt
    • of this Act.'' Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered GGP to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice GGP failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.txt
    • (Excluding G4) N-6 -1.32 -1.25 -1.61 -0.73 -1.85 -0.87 -1.76 -3.72 -1.34 0.43 N-4 -1.31 -1.43 -0.92 -1.07 -1.66 -1.07 -0.87 -1.94 -1.19 0.29 N-3 -0.79 -1.85 -2.23 -1.73 -1.50 -2.38 -1.47 -0.26 -1.71 0.53 N-2 -0.76 -1.94 -2.31 -0.53 -1.31 -0.91 -0.71 -0.89 -1.21 0.68 N+2 0.02 -2.99 -1.94 -0.48 -0.04 -0.67 -0.40 0.50 -0.93 1.12 Mean -0.83 -1.89 -1.80 -0.91 -1.27 -1.18 -1.04 -1.26 -1.28 Std Dev 0.55 0.68 0.56 0.51 0.72 0.69 0.56 1.64 0.68 Note: The overall means and standard deviations (lower right corner of the chart) omitted data for receiver G4 for reasons discussed in the section of this chapter entitled, "Desired Signal Source: SFU Versus ATSC997". The variability among these measured differences in D/U ratios
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1602A1.txt
    • 17, 2004 to June 26, 2006. By operating its PLMRS stations for approximately two years without authorization, CLP apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. CLP also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the stations. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-163A1.txt
    • the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $1,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Spiry's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mr. Spiry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-165A1.txt
    • (``Dallas Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Unique. Unique has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Unique Broadcasting, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-166A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to A Radio. A Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, A Radio Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1672A1.txt
    • of this Act.'' Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered RSDC to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice RSDC failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h� h�G h�G p q r u w x � h�G h�G h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h�G h� h�G O P Q T V W � h�G h�G h6[ h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G + , h�G h�G h� h�G h�G ) * , - � � ... � � � � h�G h�G ", h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G 0 1 h�G h�G h�G h�G h� h�G h�G h�G h�G . / 1 2 � � � � � � � h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G "1 h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-167A1.txt
    • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Abreu submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Abreu's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1686A1.txt
    • 2004 to September 1, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately two years without authorization, JSMC apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. JSMC also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1752A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 51241 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420038 FRN: 0012088456 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 26, 2007 Released: April 30, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Pacifica Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KALO(TV), Honolulu, Hawaii (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3615(d) of the Rules, by failing to file Biennial Ownership Reports. Based upon our review
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.txt
    • � 2.1205(a). See Section 2.1204(a)(4) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(4). Section 2.1203(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203(a), permits the importation of a radiofrequency device only if ``the importer or ultimate consignee, or their designated customs broker, declares that the device meets one of the conditions for entry set out in this section.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 H I J x y � ... � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G `` '' h�G h�G h� h�G h�G 8 ^ u � � � ` ' '' � � � � � � � h�G h�G '' h} � h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G - h�G h�G h� - u v h�G h�G %v w z | } � h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G 6 7 ��`��gde gde he h�G h� 4 5 7 8 � h�G h�G $� � � `` � - � -7 h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� h� - h�G h�G &- . / 2 4 5 � h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1760A1.txt
    • Section 302(b) of the Act or Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. Vitec also contends that, if there is a basis for a monetary forfeiture, the $11,200 forfeiture amount assessed in the Forfeiture Order is excessive. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 302(b)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G { | h�G h�G h� h�G - 1 : < F G I V Z y z | } h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G '} � � � � � � h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G | } h�G h�G h� h�G h�G { } ~ � � � � � h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G � � } h} � h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h� h�G h�G D E F I K L � h�G - h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G ' ( h�G h�G h� h�G % & ( )  h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G # � � � � � � ( h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1779A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Pierre-Francois. Mr. Pierre-Francois has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean-Harry Pierre-Francois IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1780A1.txt
    • the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Wilson submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Wilson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1784A1.txt
    • were inadvertent and only ``theoretically harmful.'' As such, AboCom further asserts that the marketing of the wireless access points has not been shown to be part of a deliberate plan to evade or disregard the rules. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining AboCom's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1788A1.pdf
    • Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. Siga Broadcasting submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Siga Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1802A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Tama Radio Licenses of Jacksonville, Florida, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WFJO(FM), Folkston, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1803A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Marion R. Williams (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WSTT(AM), Thomasville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1804A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Alabama State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVAS(FM), Montgomery, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1805A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of the R & B Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WWTM(AM) Decatur, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1806A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Applied Life Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for non-commercial educational Station KALR(FM), Hot Springs, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1807A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Lincoln University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for non-commercial educational Station WLNX(FM), Lincoln, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1810A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of WBLB, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for Station WBLB(AM), Pulaski, Virginia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1812A1.txt
    • reduce the forfeiture amount, claiming that its failure to renew its license was ``due to ignorance,'' and was ``an oversight,'' and ``not a premeditated act.'' Hare Planting also states that ``[f]ifty-two hundred dollars is a lot of money to us.'' III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1867A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not currently establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing-aid compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-186A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Rankine. Rankine has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-187A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Simpson. Simpson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Elroy Simpson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-188A1.txt
    • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the petition for waiver filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DENIED, and the petition for reconsideration filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.txt
    • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � ! & ' w | tm � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.txt
    • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � g l � ' � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-192A1.txt
    • raised no new arguments for us to address herein. We also find no reason to cancel the forfeiture based on Mr. Brown's decision to discontinue the station's operation. We have, however, examined the financial documentation submitted with Mr. Brown's petition and will reconsider the forfeiture amount pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b) of the Act , Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In analyzing a financial hardship claim, the Commission generally has looked to gross revenues as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick in determining whether a licensee is able to pay the assessed forfeiture. While we find that Mr. Brown
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1961A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Vision Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for Station KPXS(FM), Vidalia, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1962A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Morehead State University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WMKY(FM), Morehead, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WMKY(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1963A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Continental Broadcasting Corp. of Arizona, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KPHX(AM), Phoenix, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the KPHX(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1964A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Eastern Illinois Christian Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WEIC(AM), Charleston, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WEIC(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1965A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Taylor Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WJTB(AM), North Ridgeville, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1977A1.txt
    • of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. HRN submitted a response to the NAL requesting rescission or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining HRN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1979A1.txt
    • in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Roberts submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Roberts' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1980A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Southern Adventist University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WSMC-FM, Collegedale, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSMC-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1987A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 22207 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420030 FRN: 0005795067 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 3, 2007 Released: May 7, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Fox Television Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WTTG(TV), Washington, D.C. (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the commercial limits in children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1988A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 33543 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420028 FRN: 0001694462 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 3, 2007 Released: May 7, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KATV, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KATV(TV), Little Rock, Arkansas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1989A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 74174 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420029 FRN: 0002209260 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 3, 2007 Released: May 7, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WVTV Licensee, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WVTV(TV), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1990A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 50170 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420034 FRN: 0004970596 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 3, 2007 Released: May 7, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KOCB Licensee, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KOCB(TV), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1991A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 20427 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420036 FRN: 0009961889 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 3, 2007 Released: May 7, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KQTV(TV), St. Joseph, Missouri (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1992A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 40993 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420037 FRN: 0001656388 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 11, 2007 Released: May 16, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KTVK, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTVK(TV), Phoenix, Arizona (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of the Station's Children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1993A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 52408 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420035 FRN: 0009961889 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 11, 2007 Released: May 16, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WQRF-TV, Rockford, Illinois (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1994A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 3359 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420033 FRN: 0002207520 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 11, 2007 Released: May 16, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Media General Broadcasting of South Carolina Holdings, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WRBL(TV), Columbus, Georgia (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(5), (e)(11)(i), and (e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1995A1.txt
    • interference by the Riverside Police Department. Fed Ex also argues that the violation was not repeated, because Fed Ex was able to resolve the interference the same day it was notified of the interference by the Los Angeles FCC agent. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1996A1.txt
    • Juarez filed a response (``Response'') on October 25, 2006, admitting the violation of Section 73.49, providing evidence that an effective fence now enclosed the antenna structure, and requesting that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Ortega and Juarez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2016A1.txt
    • be required to place bids....'') (emphasis in original). Request for Waiver at 1. See TPS Utilicom, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 2516, 2526 � 18 & n.59 (WTB 2003) (``TPS Order''). ``The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know and comply with all of the Commission's rules.'' Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17099 � 22 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). See also 47 C.F.R. � 0.406 (instructing those having business before the Commission to familiarize themselves with pertinent rules and regulations). Moreover, Kankakee specifically was on notice that it was responsible for complying with the Commission's competitive bidding
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2056A1.txt
    • 9, 2006.'' By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 13 months without an instrument of authorization, Doss apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Doss also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2069A1.txt
    • warranted. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Jerry Russell dba The Russell Company IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2083A1.txt
    • July 28, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for almost four years without authorization, Kimberly Clark apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Kimberly Clark also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2085A1.txt
    • Commission registration in March 2002, completed construction in April 2002, filed for tower registration in May 2002, and did not complete registration of the tower until August 10, 2006. By failing to register its tower prior to construction and for more than four years thereafter, Telcom apparently violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2094A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to New Relampago. New Relampago has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, New Relampago Car Service Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2095A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mobile. Mobile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mobile Car Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2099A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cox Broadcast Group, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCGA(AM), Woodbine, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2100A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Ace Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WQST(AM), Thomasville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2101A1.txt
    • before it (1) the captioned application of Faith Baptist Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KCAS(FM), McCook, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KCAS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2102A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Northern Oklahoma College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for non-commercial educational Station KAYE-FM, Tonkawa, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-210A1.txt
    • Taxicab for the noted violations. In its Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, Portland Taxicab does not dispute the violations but again seeks a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay the $12,000 forfeiture. III DISCUSSION 6. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules require that the Commission take into account, among other things, the party's ability to pay a forfeiture. A successful claim to reduce a forfeiture for inability to pay requires specific supporting financial documentation. In analyzing economic-hardship claims, the Commission generally looks to a company's gross revenues from the three most recent tax years as a reasonable and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2118A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-211A1.txt
    • must dismiss Mr. Oaks' petition for reconsideration as untimely. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the letter petition for reconsideration filed by David Michael Oaks IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2125A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Hendrix College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KHDX(FM), Conway, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2126A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Burnet Bible Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KFGG-LP, Marble Falls, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2127A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of H&H Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KLBA-FM, Albia, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2128A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Charles River Broadcasting WFCC License, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WFCC-FM, Chatham, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain required documentation in the WFCC-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-212A1.txt
    • for a $4,000 forfeiture as proposed by the NAL. On December 17, 2004, Mr. Gordon filed a Petition for Reconsideration restating the same arguments he made in his response to the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Gordon's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2136A1.txt
    • response (``Response'') on November 27, 2006, arguing that it was in the process of ordering new EAS equipment prior to the inspection by the San Francisco Office, and that the forfeiture should be cancelled based on Gla-Mar's inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Gla-Mar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2137A1.txt
    • that the violation was neither willful nor repeated, and requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KSPZ antenna towers, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Sandhill's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2138A1.txt
    • main studio for KHLU-LP; that HTV will have financial difficulty paying the forfeiture amount; and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on HTV's history of compliance and its good faith effort to maintain a main studio for KHLU-LP. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining HTV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-213A1.txt
    • Mr. Clay seeks dismissal of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay the forfeiture amount, and the fact that the equipment has been destroyed or sold. He has provided personal financial information to support his inability to pay claim. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement ``). In examining Mr. Clay's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-214A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Citicasters Licenses, L.P., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KPLV(FM), Las Vegas, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KPLV(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.txt
    • access to NPTC's poles without a formal agreement in the event that NPTC fails to timely complete a just and reasonable pole attachment agreement. Complaint at 10-11, � 34. Salsgiver Telecom also requests that the Commission impose penalties and sanctions, and grant an award of damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. �� 206-209, 501, 503(a), (b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1413, 1.80. Complaint at 10-11, � 34. We address these requests in Section III.D., infra. See, e.g., Response at 6, 12 �� 14, 41, 43-44. Although section 224(f)(2) explicitly permits denial of access ``where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes,'' 47 U.S.C. � 224(f)(2), NPTC's denial of access does not rest on any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-215A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHCY(FM), Blairstown, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WHCY(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-216A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSUS(FM), Franklin, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSUS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-217A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WADR(AM), Remsen, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WADR(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2180A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35870 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420040 FRN: 0001594233 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 4, 2007 Released: June 6, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KVVU Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KVVU-TV, Henderson, Nevada (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's Television
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2181A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 51517 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420039 FRN: 0007187727 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 4, 2007 Released: June 6, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Viacom Television Stations Group of Dallas/Fort Worth L.P. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTXA(TV), Fort Worth, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2182A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 21161 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420041 FRN: 0004982625 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 4, 2007 Released: June 6, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Colins Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSNB-TV, Superior, Nebraska (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-218A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WRNY(AM), Rome, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WRNY(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-219A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WUTQ(AM), Utica, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WUTQ(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-220A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WUMX(FM), Rome, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WUMX(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2235A1.txt
    • sign WQFD608. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately one year without an instrument of authorization, Sakaida apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Sakaida also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-223A1.txt
    • KRCK-FM's EAS equipment and failure to maintain a main studio. In its petition, Playa del Sol does not dispute the violations but instead seeks rescission or reduction of the forfeiture, claiming an inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Playa del Sol's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-224A1.txt
    • Mr. Martin had made preparations for painting the tower. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin had not provided a sufficiently detailed description and dates of the unfavorable weather conditions which delayed the painting. However, after taking into consideration all of the statutory factors described in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the Bureau reduced the proposed forfeiture amount from $10,000 to eight thousand dollars ($8,000) on the basis of Mr. Martin `s history of overall compliance. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin successfully substantiated a
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2300A1.txt
    • Response and the record, we find that Burke's Garden did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Burke's Garden Telephone Company, Inc., in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2306A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 51518 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420044 FRN: 0007567738 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 4, 2007 Released: June 11, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that San Antonio (KRRT-TV) Licensee, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KMYS(TV), Kerrville, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2307A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 7675 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420043 FRN: 0004284899 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 4, 2007 Released: June 11, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KJTL(TV), Wichita Falls, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2308A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 3659 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420042 FRN: 0009961889 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 4, 2007 Released: June 11, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSFX-TV, Springfield, Missouri (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and (ii), and 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-230A1.txt
    • on Blountstown's inability to pay and its record of compliance. In support of these contentions, Blountstown submitted affidavits, relevant broadcast station daily log sheets, as well as its Federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Blountstown's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-232A1.txt
    • tax information to the Commission upon request. Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. We have examined Rama's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2349A1.txt
    • M.R.S. in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. M.R.S. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining M.R.S.' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.txt
    • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 6, 2007 - � ` a c | � - - - � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.txt
    • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 � � ~  � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.txt
    • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.txt
    • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 > > ? > ? h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2374A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 146 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420047 FRN: 0003576485 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 14, 2007 Released: June 22, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Tribune Television Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WXIN(TV), Indianapolis, Indiana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2375A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 72115 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420046 FRN: 0002856334 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 25, 2007 Released: July 27, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WGN Continental Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WGN-TV, Chicago, Illinois (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2376A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73881 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420045 FRN: 0002850147 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 11, 2007 Released: July 13, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WPIX, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WPIX(TV), New York, New York (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 (R) � (R) � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 2 3 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 C D C D D h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 b c b c h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 i i j i j h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-240A1.txt
    • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Brian Rothell (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WCHM(AM), Clarkesville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-241A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of UA-ASU-TSU Educational Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WAPR(FM), Selma, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-242A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Brown Broadcasting System, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBKZ(AM), Jefferson, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-243A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Florala Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WKWL(AM), Florala, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2442A1.txt
    • to exhibit antenna structure #1013937's red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Multicultural filed a response (``Response'') on January 23, 2007, arguing that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on Multicultural's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Multicultural's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2443A1.txt
    • on January 18, 2007, arguing that an admonishment, rather than the base forfeiture amount, should be issued for that violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because Gold Coast has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Gold Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2444A1.txt
    • the NAL, and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Finally, if a forfeiture is imposed, Payne asks for a personal interview and/or a hearing with a Commission official at the nearest field office to discuss the NAL. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Payne's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-244A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Partners for Christian Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WBDX(FM), Trenton, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-245A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Imani Communications Corporation, Inc., (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBFZ(FM), Selma, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h5 h5 h5 h5 ! " ! " h5 h5 h� h5 h5 h5 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-246A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Chappell Communications, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHIE(AM), Griffin, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-247A1.txt
    • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of WLVV, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WLVV(AM), Mobile, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-249A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Milwaukee Board of School Directors (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WYMS(FM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WYMS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-250A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Sanchez Communications Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K233AK, Hanalei, Hawaii (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-251A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Radio Assist Ministry, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K201AY, Borger, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2551A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to L4 Media. L4 Media has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, L4 Media Group, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2552A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Mr. Konarz. Mr. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 12, 2007 } ~ } ~ ~ kd h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2579A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35883 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420050 FRN: 0001615046 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 1, 2007 Released: August 3, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KWGN Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KWGN-TV, Denver, Colorado (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.670 and 73.352(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2580A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35670 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420049 FRN: 0001531615 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 25, 2007 Released: June 29, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KTLA Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTLA-TV, Los Angeles, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2581A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 69571 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420048 FRN: 0005263884 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 14, 2007 Released: June 22, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Tribune Television Holdings, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KMYQ(TV), Seattle, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.txt
    • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 13, 2007 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 14, 2007 K L K L h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2618A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2618 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2618 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 $ $ % $ % h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2657A1.txt
    • amount should be reduced based on its history of compliance. Finally, Del Rosario Talpa states that it requested an STA to operate from its current location on October 24, 2006 and that this STA was granted on November 7, 2006. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Del Rosario Talpa's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2658A1.txt
    • Seattle agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2659A1.txt
    • Seattle agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2696A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73195 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420051 FRN: 0003454931 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 25, 2007 Released: June 29, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WKYC-TV, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WKYC-TV, Cleveland, Ohio (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's Television
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2749A1.txt
    • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified herein. We have further determined that Global QA Corp. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2785A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of J.L. Brewer Broadcasting, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W227AK, Chattanooga, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2786A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W201BW, Hopkinsville, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2787A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Educational Radio Foundation of East Texas, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K214BE, Shreveport, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2788A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of M & D Translator, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W267AL, Syracuse, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2789A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Capstar TX Limited Partnership (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNE-FM, Taunton, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSNE-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2790A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KBAC(FM), Las Vegas, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KBAC(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2827A1.txt
    • machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 (nine thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2852A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that New England Industrial Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2853A1.txt
    • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Infasource.com is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2975A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Roswell Interarts Organization (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K276ED, Roswell, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2976A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Shepherd Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K210AD, Santa Barbara, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2977A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Enterprise City (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K293AF, Enterprise, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.txt
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 d ��`��gd0 h0 h0 M Q W b c d e i n � � � h0 'd e h} h� ��^��gd0 gd0 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-299A1.txt
    • Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules by marketing the RMR-C450 device, which is not eligible for a grant of equipment certification because it produces a radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at 11.23 GHz, and which produces emissions that substantially exceed the radiated emission limits for intentional radiators. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3003A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WZKF(FM), Salem, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WZKF(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3004A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Citicasters Licenses, LP (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KABQ-FM, Santa Fe, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KABQ-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3005A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WJLB(FM), Detroit, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WJLB(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3006A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WJMN(FM), Boston, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WJMN(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3007A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, LLC, (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WKCI-FM, Hamden, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WKCI-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3008A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Capstar TX Limited Partnership (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHJY(FM), Providence, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WHJY(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3011A1.txt
    • to that authority, the Bureau three times ordered Yellow Cab to submit a timely written response to its letters of inquiry and to provide the information requested. Three times Yellow Cab failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� 9 : ; ? v ~  � � '' � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3067A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3067 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3067 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 L M L M M h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� O W X ] h m n tm 6tm � � � � � � � � h� h� h� h� h� h� gd� � ]��^��gd� gd� gd� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� 3 4 [ \ ] o p r � � (� � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3097A1.txt
    • for Station KASR(FM), Vilonia, Arkansas (the ``Station''). The Commission also has before it an informal objection (``Objection'') filed by Merrill Media Group (``MMG'') on July 20, 2005. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3098A1.txt
    • the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Winton submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Winton's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3099A1.txt
    • (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Brenau. Brenau has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Brenau University Network IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� " , 0 6 : N f t u v z � � � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� 0 D [ i j k o � (R) � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hF hF hF h� ) * + / f n o t  � ... � � � � � � � � � hF � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A%
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� < D E J U Z [ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.txt
    • 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� h� W _ ` e p u v � � � � " � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3189A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3189 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3189 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h5 h5 h5 d e d e h5 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-320A1.txt
    • supports his request for reduction or elimination of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay. The financial information provided is a set of tax returns for Rejoice. No financial information for Mr. Neely himself is provided. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Neely's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3218A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 10192 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420056 FRN: 0005751029 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 18, 2007 Released: July 20, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Tribune Broadcast Holdings, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KRCW-TV, Salem, Oregon (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3219A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 48360 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420053 FRN: 0001543974 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 18, 2007 Released: July 20, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KTVU Partnership (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KRXI-TV, Reno, Nevada (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.txt
    • Sections 2.906, 2.909 and 2.1071 through 2.1077 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.�� 2.906, 2.909, and 2.1071 through 2.1077. Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to One-O-One iSolutions, Inc. (October 2, 2006). Letter from Christoph Goeltner, to Gabriel Collazo, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 5, 2006). See Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # [ \ � � '' � � (c) � � � � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3220A1.txt
    • ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 40878 NAL/Acct. No.0741420054 FRN: 0003476827 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 18, 2007 Released: July 20, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KERO-TV, Bakersfield, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3221A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 25048 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420055 FRN: 0001690403 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 1, 2007 Released: August 3, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KXTV, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KXTV(TV), Sacramento, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's Television
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-322A1.txt
    • Forfeiture Order. We reject Greenwood's unsupported claims that it was not in violation. Third, Greenwood asserts that the assessed $7,000 forfeiture amount ``equates this situation with a circumstance in which there is no fence at all. . . .'' Neither the tower fencing rule set forth in Section 73.49 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between an antenna structure that is enclosed within an ineffective locked fence, and one that has no fence at all. In both cases the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is not the maximum amount that may be assessed, but merely the starting point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3235A1.txt
    • Arias, Blackstone, to Carla Conover, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated December 20, 2004. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19898 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See Response of Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. dated April 20, 2006 (``Response''), at 2. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. � 1464). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). After a citation has issued, no additional citation with respect to the conduct of the type detailed in the citation is necessary before notice and penalty proceedings may ensue. Id. Id. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07- 3235 Federal Communications Commission DA
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3238A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. McCollum. Mr. McCollum has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Thomas McCollum IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3245A1.txt
    • Hornsby, Texas (the ``Station''), and (2) the Informal Objection (``Objection'') to the application filed on April 1, 2005, by Mr. James R. Ellinger (the ``Objector'' or ``Ellinger''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KOOP(FM) public inspection file, and we find that the Licensee also violated the alien ownership provisions
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3260A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned applications of Calvary Baptist Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W249AS, Norwich, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G 1 2 h� / 0 2 3 � � � � � ` � h�G h�G "2 h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h�G h� T U V Y [ \ � h�G h�G h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3281A1.txt
    • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Mechanicsville Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Mechanicsville Telephone Company apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, MECHANICHVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3282A1.txt
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that CyberData, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that CyberData, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand, five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3291A1.txt
    • have determined that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, AUDIO-VIDEO CORPORATION D/B/A A-1 COMMUNICATIONS IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3299A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-330A1.txt
    • it the captioned applications of Morgan County Broadcasting Co., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for Stations WECO(AM) and WECO-FM (FM), Wartburg, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-331A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Manchester College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBKE-FM, North Manchester, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-332A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Meadowland Baptist Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WBLG-LP, Bowling Green, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-334A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Gary Community School Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WGVE-FM, Gary, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.txt
    • as the material's sponsor. See also note 8, supra. Although in this case certain broadcast stations actually aired the subject material, this is not a prerequisite to a finding of violation of Section 507(c). That provision states that disclosure is required whenever any person supplies program material ``which is intended for broadcast....'' 47 U.S.C. � 507(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 htm " $ , 1 I J O S T \ ] s ~ � � � � "� � h� h� ] ! � M...�...3(c)$�D̎�(c)�'���PNG �����+tT e�ET``G����v �HF"e� )!��`� �i(R)V�-�H\�yG7Vk/�� �����q��D}� � ��b�y %*s�`6� M�(R)Oߞۺ�-[� � 6J-_@``R j^�A��"� �t�BP��5X�i���>"=~�� B A� �ED�` � � p��K�� �r $ ��I��r�~ެ' �S�V���m9\7v7tmu���
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-336A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Memphis City Schools (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WQOX(FM), Memphis, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3372A1.txt
    • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 3 unsolicited advertisements to the 3 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3374A1.txt
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Aras Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3375A1.txt
    • Industries, Inc. apparently violated section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message identified above. We have further determined that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. , and the related orders described above. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Travelcomm Industries, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 13. Payment by check or money order, payable to the order of the ``Federal
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-337A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bloomington Community Radio Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WFHB(FM), Bloomington, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # $ h h�G h� h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G ! " $ % { | } � � � � � � � � h�G h�G h} h h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...���
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h h� h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G h�G ! " # & ( ) 2 3 4 5 � � h�G h�G h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A%
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-339A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Tennessee Technological University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WTTU(FM), Cookeville, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.txt
    • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� O P O P h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-340A1.txt
    • by any act, delay, omission or otherwise be deemed to have waived any of its rights or remedies under this Agreement, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing, signed by the Commission, and only to the extent therein set forth.'' Rockford Security Agreement at 5; Lexington Security Agreement at 5. Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, CI Docket No. 95-6, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,099 �22 (1997) ("The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know and comply with all of the Commission's rules."). Division Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17,622 (citing Richmond, 496 U.S. 414). Petition at 6. Leeds does not address
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3411A1.txt
    • supporting documents and provide them to the Commission. Taking into account all of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we therefore conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $50,000 is warranted for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets. Turning now to COI's failure to provide documentation and respond to the Bureau's LOI, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its response would be timely submitted. In fact,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3412A1.txt
    • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred following two extension requests by ITE of the required response deadline, repeated
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3419A1.txt
    • WWLD(FM), Cairo, Georgia (the ``Stations''). We also have before us the February 12, 2004, informal objection (``Informal Objection'') to the Applications filed by Peter B. Fulton, Inc. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.17 of the Rules by falsely certifying in the captioned license renewal applications that the Stations' public inspection files were complete throughout the license term and by providing in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-342A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Faith Trinity Assemblies (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WZYZ(FM), Spencer, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-343A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of John F. Warmath (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WIRJ(AM), Humboldt, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3442A1.txt
    • in the amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) for the apparent willful violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. On November 11, 2006, the Norfolk Office received Mr. Smallwood's response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Smallwood's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3443A1.txt
    • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violation of Sections 73.1125(a), 73.1350(b)(2) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3444A1.txt
    • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,000 to Talknsports. Talknsports has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Talknsports, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 73.1740(a)(4) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.txt
    • 0.29 RevenueandPrice TotalRevenuefromAllAds(000s) $22.83 $27.80 $11.99 AveragePriceper30-secondspot(000s) $31.31 $37.34 $18.17 Observations 4,437 2,127 2,310 Notes:Reportedinthetablearesamplestatisticsforthedatausedinouranalysisoftelevisionstation ownershipstructureonthequantityandqualityoftelevisionprogramming.Anobservationisabroadcast- television-station-year,thusthe(e.g.)newsprogrammingisthepercentageofquarterhoursofferingnews programmingacrossalltheprogramsofferedbythatstationbetween6:00p.m.and12:00a.m.EST(or theequivalent)duringeachofthetwoweeksperyearfor4years(cf.Table1)forwhichwehavedata.See Section??formoredetails.Source:Diwadi,Roberts,andWise(2007),TMS,andauthorcalculations. 44 Table16: SampleStatisticsforOwnershipAnalysis,Page2 ProgrammingVariables All"Big-4" Other Variable StationsStationsStations NewsProgramming AnyNews 18.95 28.43 10.22 NetworkNews 6.00 11.47 0.96 LocalNews 12.95 16.96 9.26 PublicAffairsProgramming 2.82 0.14 5.28 MinorityProgramming Spanish-LanguageProgramming 1.69 0.00 3.24 Children'sProgramming "Children'sProgramming" 0.79 0.00 1.52 GMoviesorTV-Y/TV-Y7TV 1.01 0.21 1.74 Eitheroftheabove 1.80 0.21 3.26 FamilyProgramming TY-GProgramming 13.11 4.55 20.98 Arts,Educational,orDocumentaryProgramming 6.64 1.06 11.79 Eitherofthetwoabove 19.75 5.61 32.77 AdultProgramming NC-17MoviesorTV-MA-S/TV-MA-LTV 0.47 0.00 0.90 ViolentProgramming "ViolentProgramming" 0.50 0.12 0.85 TV-PG-VTelevision 3.94 5.06 2.91 TV-14-VTelevision 4.08 6.13 2.20 TV-MA-VTelevision 0.16 0.00 0.30 Anyofthethreeabove 8.18 11.18 5.41 Anyofthelasttwoabove 4.24 6.13 2.50 ReligiousProgramming "ReligiousProgramming" 5.69 0.03 10.91 OverallTargeting AverageTVContentRating(wherenotedforTV) 3.94 4.28 3.61 AverageMPAARating(wherenotedformovies) 3.73 3.62 3.88 Observations
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
    • (3.13) 0.878 251 Format 101 HHI -0.101* (2.38) -0.003* (8.16) -0.082 (-0.88) 0.012 (0.55) -0.000007* (-2.38) 0.531 251 Format 20 Count 2.091 (0.86) 0.230* (10.94) 3.411 (0.64) 0.761 (0.63) 0.000357* (2.05) 0.740 251 Format 20 HHI -0.200* (3.64) -0.004* (7.54) -0.217 (-1.79) 0.031 (1.14) -0.000007 (-1.69) 0.404 251 Format 11 Count -0.354 (0.23) 0.103* (7.60) 1.026 (0.30) -0.008 (-0.01) 0.000201 (1.80) 0.607 251 Format 11 HHI -0.173* (3.09) -0.003* (6.90) -0.221 (-1.79) 0.003 (0.09) -0.000003 (-0.73) 0.361 251 With Demographics: Format 101 Count 3.399 (1.00) 0.405* (13.68) 0.920 (0.13) 1.526 (0.93) 0.000426 (1.73) 0.892 244 Format 101 HHI -0.109* (2.51) -0.003* (7.03) -0.037 (-0.40) 0.002 (0.11) -0.000006 (-1.91) 0.582 244 Format 20 Count 4.374 (1.70) 0.208* (9.31) 1.894 (0.35) 0.369 (0.30)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.txt
    • 17: Editorial Endorsements and Political Slant of Cross-owned Stations Independent variables Difference in Candidate Speaking Time Difference in Candidate Coverage Difference in Partisan Issue Coverage Difference in Poll Coverage Cross-owned newspaper -3.3 (0.98) -3.8 (1.08) -8.3 (1.54) -9.2* (1.68) -10.8 (0.91) -11.2 (0.93) -3.1 (1.15) -2.9 (1.05) Cross-owned radio 3.4 (0.99) 1.9 (0.51) 9.8 (1.01) 7.5 (0.77) -25.4* (1.74) -25.8* (1.80) -9.5 (1.36) -9.6 (1.35) Cross-owned radio and newspaper 2.5 (0.47) 5.1 (0.86) 6.0 (0.51) 10.4 (0.87) 41.2* (1.95) 42.1* (1.94) 6.9 (0.93) 6.7 (0.87) Endorsement in 2004 (1=Kerry, Bush=-1) 6.3* (1.90) 5.5* (1.77) 5.1 (0.83) 4.0 (0.65) -15.7 (1.66) -16.1 (1.64) 0.7 (0.43) 0.4 (0.24) Other control variables Ownership and network controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3480A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 58827 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420057 FRN: 0001535053 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 8, 2007 Released: August 10, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KSWB Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSWB-TV, San Diego, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.txt
    • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as ``[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.'' RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - h�G h�G h� h�G h�G v w x { } ~ � h} h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3515A1.txt
    • Communications (``Superior'') on January 21, 2005, and a ``Petition to Rescind Grant and Dismiss [the captioned Licensee] Application'' filed by RB Schools (``RB'') on November 17, 2005. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station; willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-352A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Fairview Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WPFD(AM), Fairview, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-353A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of RSE Broadcasting, LLC, (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WKWH(AM), Shelbyville, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3540A1.txt
    • one quarter. Based on our review of Georgia Eagle's response to the NALs and the record, we cancel the NALs and admonish Georgia Eagle for failing to make available complete public inspection files for the three stations on May 9, 2007. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. Nos. 20073248010, 200732480011, and 200732480012 ARE CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Georgia Eagle Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of stations WCEH(AM), WRPG(FM), and WQXZ(FM) IS ADMONISHED for its violations of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by regular mail and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-354A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Columbia City Joint High School (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WJHS(FM), Columbia City, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-355A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Meade County Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WMMG-FM, Brandenburg, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-356A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Larko Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBZQ(AM), Huntington, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-357A1.txt
    • of Franklin Avenue Church of the Living God, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its cancelled license for low power FM Station WYAH-LP, Winchester, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3581A1.txt
    • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone (``Connect'' or ``Company''). Connect violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. Connect acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued to Connect a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on Connect's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave Connect the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3582A1.txt
    • 10. We have determined that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Connect apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3583A1.txt
    • monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against PhoneCo, LP (``PhoneCo'' or ``Company''). PhoneCo violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. PhoneCo acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to PhoneCo a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on PhoneCo's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave PhoneCo the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3584A1.txt
    • clauses 10. We have determined that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an adequate CPNI compliance certificate in accordance with the rule. We find Capital Telecommunications, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CAPITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3597A1.txt
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Emile. Emile has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marcel Emile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3598A1.txt
    • the International Bureau granted Steamboat's request for STA. By operating its earth station for approximately one year without authorization, Steamboat apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Steamboat also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3599A1.txt
    • On January 31, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $25,000 to RMR. RMR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Rocky Mountain Radar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-359A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Soul's Harbor Assembly of God Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WRDS-LP, Roscommon, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3605A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 23394 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420058 FRN: 0003802501 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 31, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KHCW Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KHCW(TV), Houston, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3613A1.txt
    • an instrument of authorization, Hmong American apparently violated Section 301 of the Act. Hmong American also acted in apparent violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. In addition, we note that, to date, Hmong American still has not filed a renewal application. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3615A1.txt
    • captioned application (the ``Application'') of Access.1 New York License Company LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WWRL(AM), New York, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 1.17 of the Rules by falsely certifying in the WWRL(AM) license renewal application that the Station's public inspection file was complete throughout the license term. Based upon our review
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3617A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the May 29, 2007, request of E-String Wireless, Ltd. (``ESW''), for waiver of the post-auction Form 301 ``long form'' application filing deadline. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that ESW apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules by failing timely to file a post-auction Form 301 application. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3618A1.txt
    • Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the March 1, 2007, request of BKM Enterprises (``BKM''), for waiver of the post-auction Form 301 long-form application filing deadline. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that BKM apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a post-auction Form 301 application. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3619A1.txt
    • (``Dallas Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,000 to Omnicom. Omnicom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Omnicom Tower Limited IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Sections 17.47 and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3638A1.txt
    • the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On June 8, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received M.R.S.' petition for reconsideration on July 7, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.R.S.' petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3643A1.txt
    • the proposed forfeiture. On April 23, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order, in which the Bureau addressed the three NALs. The Bureau received Wilson's petition for reconsideration on May 23, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Wilson's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3697A1.txt
    • In addition, GGP asserted that the failure to file a timely renewal application by its Brass Mill Center in Waterbury, Connecticut, was an isolated and inadvertent incident and that it has an otherwise broad history of overall compliance with the rules. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3706A1.txt
    • was also permissible under Section 25.118(a)(1) of the Rules. Again, however, under Section 25.118(a), notification of such modification must be provided within 30 days of the modification. Walgreens violated Section 25.118(a) in both instances by failing to provide notice to the Commission of Modifications 2 and 3 within the requisite 30-day time period. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3734A1.txt
    • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that River City Wireless has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find River City Wireless apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, River City Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3737A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 77512 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420059 FRN: 0004336863 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 24, 2007 Released: August 27, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Utah Communications, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KPNZ(TV), Ogden, Utah (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-374A1.txt
    • Act, and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Citicasters apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify a party to a telephone conversation of its intent to record and broadcast their conversation. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of this type is $4,000. In addition, the Commission rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-375A1.txt
    • reduce the proposed forfeiture and issued the Forfeiture Order. On December 4, 2006, A Radio filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture associated with its violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A Radio's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-376A1.txt
    • submitted a response to the NAL stating that it had corrected the public file and antenna structure registration violations and requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Flagship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3810A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Israel G. Ybanez (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for commercial Station KYMI(FM), Los Ybanez, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3824A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 68886 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420061 FRN: 0005795067 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 7, 2007 Released: September 14, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Fox Television Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KUTP(TV), Phoenix, Arizona (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3825A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73879 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420060 FRN: 0003576485 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 7, 2007 Released: September 14, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Tribune Television Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WPHL-TV, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3826A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 33716 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420062 FRN: 0001543974 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 7, 2007 Released: September 14, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KTVU Partnership (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KFOX-TV, El Paso, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3843A1.txt
    • authority at a greatly reduced power, which greatly reduced its revenue. One Mart also asks that we take into consideration its good faith efforts to replace the EAS equipment, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining One Mart's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3845A1.txt
    • (``Norfolk Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Wise. Wise has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Radio Wise, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3868A1.txt
    • a response (``Response'') on July 16, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture amount should be cancelled because BEC is no longer the licensee of KICA(AM) and KKYC(FM), and that BEC rectified the violation after the inspection by the Denver Office. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining BEC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3869A1.txt
    • Larson-Wynn apparently willfully and repeatedly operated station KODL(AM) at an unauthorized location. Larson-Wynn filed a response (``Response'') on March 27, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled based on Larson-Wynn's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Larson-Wynn's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3870A1.txt
    • response (``Response'') on March 26, 2007, arguing that the fences had been removed from the towers to eliminate the overgrowth of weeds underneath the towers. Pereira also requested that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pereira's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3880A1.txt
    • facts presented in the NAL, and argues that the forfeiture should be rescinded because 3ABN immediately took steps to correct the EAS issues. 3ABN also requests that we reduce the forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining 3ABN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3902A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Detroit Lakes Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station KRCQ(FM), Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3903A1.txt
    • before it the captioned applications of Lea County Broadcasting Co. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Stations KLEA(AM) and KLEA-FM, Lovington, New Mexico (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3913A1.txt
    • 1, 2004, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order, which reduced the forfeiture to $12,000 based on Delta's history of compliance with the rules. The Bureau received Delta's petition for reconsideration on November 1, 2004, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Delta's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-391A1.txt
    • Facility I.D. No. 67098 Facility I.D. No. 67097 Facility I.D. No. 63841 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: February 7, 2007 Released: February 8, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Three Trees Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations WJYF(FM), Nashville, Georgia; WTIF(AM), Tifton, Georgia; and WTIF-FM, Omega, Georgia (collectively, the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(2), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3927A1.txt
    • NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On July 12, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Mr. Winton's petition for reconsideration on July 30, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Winton's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-393A1.txt
    • FRN: 0002965291 Facility ID No. 55240 FRN: 0002971174 Facility ID No. 59272 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: February 7, 2007 Released: February 12, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Inland Empire Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of Station KOLA(FM), San Bernardino, California, and SBR Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of Station KCAL-FM, Redlands, California (collectively, the ``Licensees'' and the ``Stations,'' respectively), each apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-394A1.txt
    • ) ) ) NAL/Acct. No. MB200741410239 FRN: 0003748613 Facility I.D. No. 73701 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: February 7, 2007 Released: February 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Liberman Television of Dallas License Corp. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KMPX(TV), Decatur, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1), 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(1)(ii), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules by failing
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3958A1.txt
    • ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 418 NAL/Acct. No.0741420066 FRN: 0006551758 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 21, 2007 Released: September 28, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WZTV Licensee, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WZTV(TV), Nashville, Tennessee (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3959A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 3661 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420065 FRN: 0009961889 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 21, 2007 Released: September 28, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WTVW(TV), Evansville, Indiana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-396A1.txt
    • ) ) ) NAL/Acct. No. MB200741410238 FRN: 0012442521 Facility ID No. 43238 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: February 7, 2007 Released: February 13, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Waitt Omaha, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KQKQ-FM, Council Bluffs, Iowa (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules, by failing to comply with the self-assessment,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.txt
    • ``[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The 1.2 GHz wireless camera purposely transmits RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h " . / 7 I J b j k s t y z � - � " � � � � � � � � � � h h � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...���
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4005A1.txt
    • the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case, which represents the base amount for the cablecast transmitted by CN8 on September 21, 2006. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL PAY the full
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4016A1.txt
    • has failed to provide any response whatsoever to the Bureau's LOI. We therefore conclude that Liberty Phones' continuing failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of Commission orders. Proposed Forfeiture Amount We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for Liberty Phones' willful and repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Liberty Phones' total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response and its grant
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4017A1.txt
    • is warranted for the unauthorized transfer of control of Telesphere's international section 214 authorization to Rally. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $16,000 against Rally is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES IT IS Further ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Rally Capital, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 63.03 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4018A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of KSUN Community Radio (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KSBP-LP, Parachute, Colorado (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4019A1.txt
    • of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for UMCC's willful or repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that UMCC's total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response, warrants a substantial increase
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4020A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Home Town Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KWSP-LP, Kerrville, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4021A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn (the ``Licensees'') for renewal of their license for commercial Station KCNQ(FM), Kernville, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensees apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4022A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn (the ``Licensees'') for renewal of their license for commercial Station KVLI-FM, Lake Isabella, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensees apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4023A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn (the ``Licensees'') for renewal of their license for commercial Station KQAB(AM), Lake Isabella, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensees apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4027A1.txt
    • In its Response, MRA argues that its overpower operation was inadvertent, that it took action to bring the station into compliance immediately after the Los Angeles Office's inspection, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining MRA's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4029A1.txt
    • Rules. CVC filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on April 18, 2007. In its Response, CVC asks for mitigation of the forfeiture based of its ability to pay, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining CVC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4030A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4030A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4030A1.txt
    • 2007, arguing that there were extenuating circumstances outside of PSETV's control that resulted in the violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on PSETV's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and its history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PSETV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4037A1.txt
    • On March 15, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $5,200 to Imperial. Imperial has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Imperial Sugar Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand two hundred dollars ($5,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.949(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4075A1.txt
    • $4,000 for each of the four apparent violations of Section 76.1615. Consequently, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for the cablecasts transmitted by CN8 on September 26 and 28, and October 3, 2006. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL PAY
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-408A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Tower Communications (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K236AC, Lake Havasu City, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4098A1.txt
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Venali, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Venali, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4099A1.txt
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-409A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Friends of KHFM-Ruidoso (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K240CN, Ruidoso, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-40A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-40A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-40A1.txt
    • therefore, find that we have no jurisdiction to consider FBS's petition for reconsideration and that it must be dismissed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Act and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, FBS's petition for reconsideration IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check, money order or similar instrument, payable to the order of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4109A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 74007 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420002 FRN: 0002893881 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 30, 2007 Released: October 5, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WSJV Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WSJV(TV), Elkhart, Indiana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4110A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 25040 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420001 FRN: 0009961889 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 30, 2007 Released: October 5, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WFFT-TV, Fort Wayne, Indiana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the station's public
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4118A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 8523 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420005 FRN: 0009961889 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 5, 2007 Released: October 12, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KAMR-TV, Amarillo, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) and 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the station's public inspection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4119A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 6359 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420004 FRN: 0001684380 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 5, 2007 Released: October 12, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Bonneville Holding Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSL-TV, Salt Lake City, Utah (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4120A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 41232 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420003 FRN: 0005878327 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 5, 2007 Released: October 15, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Meredith Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WSMV-TV, Nashville, Tennessee (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) and 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-412A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Amarillo Junior College District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KACV-FM, Amarillo, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4133A1.txt
    • ability to pay the forfeiture in installments. Although it submitted a good faith payment of $400, as of September 24, 2007, Unique failed to submit all of the required financial documentation and its request for an installment payment plan was denied. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Unique's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4134A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of the American River Folk Society (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KFOK-LP, Georgetown, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-413A1.txt
    • the captioned application of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KYNR(AM), Toppenish, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-414A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Kashunamiut School District (``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KCUK(FM), Chevak, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-416A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Gwandak Public Broadcasting, Inc. (``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KZPA(AM), Fort Yukon, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4182A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 22589 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420008 FRN: 0010053064 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 24, 2007 Released: October 26, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Freedom Broadcasting of Texas Licensee, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KFDM-TV, Beaumont, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4183A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 59494 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420007 FRN: 0006917454 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 24, 2007 Released: October 26, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Southwest Media, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KCSG(TV), Cedar City, Utah (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i), (e)(11)(ii), and (e)(7) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4184A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35655 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420006 FRN: 0003747862 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 24, 2007 Released: October 26, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Piedmont Television of Anchorage License LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTBY(TV), Anchorage, Alaska (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.670 and 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to comply with the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-418A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Community Celebrations (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KCHW-LP, Chewelah, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4194A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Plymouth State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WPCR-FM, Plymouth, New Hampshire (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4196A1.txt
    • application of The Savior's Voice Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WSVV-LP, Center Moriches, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4197A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Minds of Business Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KMOB-LP, Clearlake, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by, authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4198A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Assyrian American Civic Club (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KBDG(FM), Turlock, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4270A1.txt
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4283A1.txt
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4287A1.txt
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4288A1.txt
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4291A1.txt
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4292A1.txt
    • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4301A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Community Christian Broadcasting (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K294AI, Scandia, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4302A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Concordia Christian Radio Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K249CU, Concordia, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4303A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of B & E Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WSLV(AM), Ardmore, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4305A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mario's Roofing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4306A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Alliance Capital Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4315A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Falls Area Community Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WOOL-LP, Bellows Fall, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4316A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of O-N Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WOON(AM), Woonsocket, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4317A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Pittsfield Public School Committee (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WTBR-FM, Pittsfield, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4339A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4352A1.txt
    • on April 3, 2006, by Gene Guthrie (``Guthrie''); and (3) a Petition to Deny the renewal application (``Petition''), filed on March 15, 2006, by Kayleen Johnson (``Johnson''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3539 and 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station and failing to retain all the required documentation in Station KTMP(AM)'s
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4364A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 37503 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420009 FRN: 0002941540 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 31, 2007 Released: November 2, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Lima Communications Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WLIO(TV), Lima, Ohio (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4365A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35460 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420010 FRN: 0005877758 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 31, 2007 Released: November 2, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Meredith Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KPDX(TV), Vancouver, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4366A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 23142 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420011 FRN: 0003759289 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 31, 2007 Released: November 2, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Hispanic Broadcasters of Philadelphia, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WWSI(TV), Atlantic City, New Jersey (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4371A1.txt
    • 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for almost two and one-half years without authorization, Five Star apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Five Star also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4374A1.txt
    • also admits that it did not receive a grant of certification for this equipment until to April 3, 2007. Therefore, we find that MRC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 90.203 of the Rules by marketing 4.9 GHz aeronautical transmitting equipment prior to obtaining certification. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4383A1.txt
    • from John Fowler, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to Federal Communications Commission, State Historic Preservation Officers, and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (Sep. 21, 2000), regarding delegation of authority for the Section 106 Review of Telecommunications Projects. See Letter to Lee W. Shubert, Esq. and David J. Kaufman, Esq., 20 FCC Rcd 12348 (MB July 20, 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), Note. See also Western Wireless Corporation and WWC Holding Co., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 18 FCC Rcd 10319 (2003) (NAL issued for, inter alia, constructing tower prior to environmental review and where SHPO indicated adverse effect on historic properties) (subsequent history omitted). 16 U.S.C. � 470f. (footnote continued) Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 October 25, 2007 h� k
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4385A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of KMC Broadcasting, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for commercial Station KHRA(AM), Honolulu, Hawaii (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-442A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Royce's Electronics, Inc. (``REI'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K281AJ, Moab, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.txt
    • Shopping to Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (August 18, 2007). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�G h # $ ) R e f g n o � � � � " � � � � � � � f g h} h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-444A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Alacca Bible Conference (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K265AP, Lewiston, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4451A1.txt
    • ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 72123 NAL/Acct. No.0841420014 FRN: 0003482189 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 7, 2007 Released: November 9, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that CBS Broadcasting Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WWJ-TV, Detroit, Michigan (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4452A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 41230 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420013 FRN: 0005877550 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 7, 2007 Released: November 9, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Commission, by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Meredith Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KCTV(TV), Kansas City, Missouri (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4455A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Cutting Edge Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WEIB(FM) Northampton, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4456A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Twin City Baptist Temple, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCMX(AM), Leominster, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4457A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Newport Musical Arts Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WXHQ-LP, Newport, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4458A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Donald H. De Rosa, (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WAMF(AM) Fulton, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-445A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Bruce MacAfee (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K269AV, Tonopah & Goldfield, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-446A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Newmont Gold Company (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K259AG, Eureka, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-447A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Tower Communications (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K278AA, Lake Havasu City, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4481A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-448A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Tower Communications (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K280DL, Lake Havasu City, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-449A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Carbon County (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K285AB, Price, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4506A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Washington County Chamber of Commerce (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WBLQ-LP, Ashaway, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4508A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Sinclair Telecable, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K238AF, Santa Rosa, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4509A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of The Lacey Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K262AB, Walkerville, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4510A1.txt
    • not fully excuse the violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Station operated after its license expired and without authorization for more than four months. The Licensee was obligated to fully comply with the terms of its Station's license and maintain in effect the Station's authorization. It did not do so. Sanction. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.txt
    • deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate'' the law. The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and Section 503(b)(2)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, establish a base forfeiture amount of $32,500 for misrepresentation/lack of candor. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-451A1.txt
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Eagle West. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Eagle West has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-452A1.txt
    • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to Kaltenbach. Despite repeated contacts by the Los Angeles Office, Kaltenbach has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Kaltenbach d/b/a Metamerchant, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4551A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 41221 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420015 FRN: 0002594570 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 14, 2007 Released: November 16, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Meredith Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WNEM-TV, Bay City, Michigan (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4553A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73983 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420016 FRN: 0002891307 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 14, 2007 Released: November 16, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WSBT, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4554A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of California Black Chamber of Commerce (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KDEE-LP, Sacramento, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4555A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Scotnmex Broadcasting, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W276AV, Stamford, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4556A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Aquila Broadcasting Corp. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WAPP-LP, Westhampton, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4557A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bisiblue, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WIPS(AM), Ticonderoga, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4570A1.txt
    • obtaining an equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Ryan admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that Low Power Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4583A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Diaz. Diaz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jairo Diaz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4590A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4624A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Christian Radio Fellowship (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Fm translator Station W220AX, Ludlow, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4625A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Christian Family Radio Fellowship (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WFTF(FM), Rutland, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4626A1.txt
    • the captioned application of the Trustees of Mount Holyoke College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WHMC(FM), South Hadley, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4627A1.txt
    • On April 12, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $9,200 to RSDC. RSDC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, RSDC of Michigan, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nine thousand, two hundred dollars ($9,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4628A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Brookdale Community College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBJB-FM, Lincroft, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-462A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Christian Action Team, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KNGM(FM), Emporia, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4630A1.txt
    • 10, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,500 to Yellow Cab. Yellow Cab has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Yellow Cab Leasing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand, five hundred dollars ($10,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4647A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Cazenovia College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WITC(FM), Cazenovia, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4648A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Fitchburg State College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for noncommercial educational Station WXPL(FM), Fitchburg, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4649A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Nyack College, (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WNYK(FM), Nyack, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-464A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Hispanic Outreach Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KXOI(AM), Crane, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4650A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Trinity Media Ltd. (``Trinity'' or the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WLNL(AM), Horseheads, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4652A1.txt
    • at least two Telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that See Through Windows is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-465A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Ray R. Silva (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of the license for Station KMXO(AM), Merkel, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4667A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Priority Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W246AQ, Collingswood, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4668A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Paul Smith's College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial Station WPSA(FM), Paul Smiths, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4669A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Moundbuilders Christian Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WJHE-LP, Heath, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-466A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Bowie County Broadcasting Co., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KNBO(AM), New Boston, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4670A1.txt
    • The State University of New York College at Oneonta (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WUOW-LP, Oneonta, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4671A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 47905 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420017 FRN: 0009825456 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 20, 2007 Released: November 23, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that NBC Telemundo License Co. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WMAQ-TV, Chicago, Illinois (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4678A1.txt
    • Despite this explicit direction, Spectracom has provided no documentation to support its claim of inability to pay and therefore this defense must be rejected. Spectracom's NAL Response does not otherwise dispute the forfeiture calculations described in detail in the NAL. We therefore affirm the forfeiture calculation and methodology set forth in the NAL. Applying the factors set forth in Section 1.80 and Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act to the instant case, we conclude that Spectracom is liable for a $12,000 forfeiture. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Spectracom, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4679A1.txt
    • reduction of the forfeiture penalty proposed in the NAL. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $17,500 for C5 Communication's violations of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, C5 Communications, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $17,500 for willfully violating Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-467A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Faith Pleases God Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KTER(FM), Rudolph, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4714A1.txt
    • Decree, Order on Reconsideration 12 FCC Rcd at 12226-12227. 47 U.S.C. � 504(c) (generally prohibiting use of a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture that has neither been paid nor finally adjudicated in another proceeding to the detriment of the person to whom the notice was issued). In the Matter of the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 304 � 3 (1999). Objections, at 2. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 b c w x � *� � � �%���PNG �` �` b``D� 4 �&)�@�-�@�@�7 H >��O��� p j�� �2�=��k��� �"_� - J��, �Nt�Rb �7�P���U�ZS '��wp��ˈ jP�T{.|�87w]�g��yA�Ҩ-��=T#�O> �#W p����U�^S� �t�''�TxNt�l ۦ��X6`T{������:�r�� �A�R\ )]h]e�M8�I̟`�?K^��� ?C��A�UU �3ꡟ=��A
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4716A1.txt
    • argues that it ``does not possess or offer'' fully-assembled AMT3000 transmitters but only offers a service, the assembly of AM transmitter kits made available by the manufacturer. Thus, asserts Antique Radio Collection, it neither violated the Act nor the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 7. We
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4720A1.txt
    • has not met the requirements of Section 1.106(b)(2) of the Rules. Its petition for reconsideration must therefore be dismissed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1.106(b)(2) and (3) of the Rules, Americom's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's MO&O IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card through the Commission's Debt and Credit Management Center at
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4729A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of MM&K of Alva, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KALV(AM), Alva, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4730A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Western Translators, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K244AY, Imperial, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4731A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Postville Chamber of Commerce (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KPVL(FM), Postville, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4741A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Western Translators, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K221CJ, North Platte, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4742A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Western Translators, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K221CU, Chappell, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4743A1.txt
    • captioned application of The Christian Church of Anthony Kansas, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KCCA-LP, Anthony, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4744A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Aliyat Communications (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KCER-LP, Cisco, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.txt
    • with a label detailing the performance rating of the handset and with associated packaging that describes the technical specifications of the handset and the U-rating system. Id. See also Wireless Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. See Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. Id. Id. Id. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). Continued from previous page Continued... Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 1 2 � � � � �@��� � �@��� � �@��� � �@��� $ � ( � � � � � + �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4776A1.txt
    • Conclusion and Ordering Clauses We have determined that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Dialaround Enterprises Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DIALAROUND ENTERPRISES INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). IT IS FURTHER
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4802A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Monmouth University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WMCX(FM), West Long Branch, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4806A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of KSBJ Educational Foundation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K259AB, Sugar Land, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4809A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned applications of Box Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for Stations KBEL(AM) and KBEL-FM, Idabel, Oklahoma (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal applications for the Stations, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-481A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Life on the Way Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K203CH, Juneau, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-483A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Caribou County TV Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K272AG, Soda Springs, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-484A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Eddie Floyd (``Floyd'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K273AF, Carson City, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-485A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Greater Copper Valley Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K296EL, Glennallen, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4862A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Good News Translator Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W220CR, Gouverneur, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4863A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Kane County Special Service District #1 (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K269DQ, Orderville, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4864A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of St. Luke's Foundation, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WSLX(FM), New Canaan, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, apparently and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4865A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned applications of Stein Broadcasting Co., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for Stations KXOX(AM) and KXOX-FM, Sweetwater, Texas (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file timely license renewal applications for the Stations, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4870A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Trinity Church of the Nazarene (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KRCQ(FM), Lompoc, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4871A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of William Woods University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KWWU-LP, Fulton, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4872A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of KSOP, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K224BR, Park City, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.txt
    • affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS intercept device (which operates in the 1575.42 MHz band) and the 1.2/2.4 GHz wireless camera intentionally transmit RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. � 302(c); 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' '' � � `` � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-488A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Great Round-Up Cowboy Church (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KGRU-LP, Ellensburg, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-489A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Pribilof School District Board of Education (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KUHB-FM, St. Paul, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4907A1.txt
    • $8,000 is appropriate for its apparent violation of the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that an aggregate proposed forfeiture of $24,000 against Satamatics is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Satamatics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000) for willfully violating Section 214, 310(b)(4), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4909A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Lewiston Christian Radio Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KPLL-LP, Lewiston, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4910A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Mountain Christian Fellowship (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KMSJ-LP, Mt. Shasta, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4911A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Puffin Public Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K201AO, Seward, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4912A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Santa Cruz Educational Broadcasting Foundation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KFER(FM), Santa Cruz, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-491A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of B. Ray Carpenter (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K272AQ, St. George, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely and properly file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4922A1.txt
    • $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 5, 2007, by Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS DENIED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violations of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4935A1.txt
    • which to reconsider the forfeiture. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4938A1.txt
    • the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Bazile submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Bazile's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4959A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Lane County School District 4J (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K211BP, Florence, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4960A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of The Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KABR(AM), Alamo Community, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4961A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Rural Oregon Wireless Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K208DB, Enterprise, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4962A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Rural Oregon Wireless Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K234AD, Enterprise, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4989A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73203 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420020 FRN: 0001842202 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 14, 2007 Released: December 18, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WLEX Communications, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WLEX-TV, Lexington, Kentucky (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4990A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 74420 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420019 FRN: 0004805776 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 14, 2007 Released: December 18, 2007 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Young Broadcasting of Lansing, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WLNS-TV, Lansing, Michigan (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4992A1.txt
    • ) ) ) File No. EB-06-IH-0824 FRN: 0010215812 NAL/Acct. No. 200832080010 Facility ID No. 10825 FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 13, 2007 Released: December 13, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC (``Multicultural''), licensee of Station KAZN(AM), Pasadena, California (the ``Station''), liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for its repeated and willful violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to ``fully and accurately disclose the material terms of contest[s] . . . and conduct
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4A1.txt
    • Russell the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. On December 15, 2006, Russell submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Russell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5004A1.txt
    • NAL/Acct. No. 200832080011 Facility ID No. 6545 FRN No. 0010028835 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 14, 2007 Released: December 17, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that 3 Point Media - Salt Lake City, LLC (``3 Point Media''), licensee of Station KHTB(FM), Provo, Utah, broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of the facts,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-502A1.txt
    • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules and the apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Long Pond submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Long Pond's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5042A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Anchor Network (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KSEP-LP, Brookings, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5043A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Whidbey Island Center for the Arts (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KWPA-LP, Coupeville, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5044A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Susan J. Smith (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of her license for FM translator Station K265BD, Wenatchee, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5045A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Colby-Sawyer College (``the Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WSCS(FM), New London, New Hampshire, (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSCS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5046A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Drexel University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WKDU(FM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WKDU(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5047A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Rockland Public Schools (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WRPS(FM), Rockland, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WRPS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5048A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Masconomet Regional School System (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBMT(FM), Boxford, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5051A1.txt
    • ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's petition for reconsideration of the February 6, 2007 Forfeiture Order IS hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. Payment of the $10,000 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5074A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Northwest Communities Education Center (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KDNA(FM), Yakima, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5075A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Priority Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W278AK, Village Green, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5076A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Applegate Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KAPL(AM), Phoenix, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5084A1.txt
    • 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the request for reconsideration filed by Florida Food Products, Inc. IS DENIED. 6. Payment of the three thousand dollar ($3,000) forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5090A1.txt
    • because its actions were not ``willful'' under Section 301 of the Act. It also asserts that the Commission is barred from assessing a forfeiture for violation of Section 1.949(a) (failure to file a timely renewal application) on statute of limitations grounds. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5105A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $23,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $23,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5107A1.txt
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-534A1.txt
    • of Kalispell Christian Radio Fellowship, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for Station KALS(FM), Kalispell, Montana, and FM Translator Station K257BR, Polson, Montana, (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-53A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Burgess Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``Burgess'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WGAA(AM), Cedartown, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-541A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Lake County TV-FM, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K228AG and K280DZ, Leadville, Colorado (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-544A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Gallatin Valley Witness, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KCMM(FM), Belgrade, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-545A1.txt
    • captioned applications of Pikes Peak Community College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K268AR, Pueblo, Colorado and K206BZ, Manitou Springs (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for each Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Stations
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-546A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Dillon N.P.R. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K288DZ, Dillon, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-547A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lakota Communications (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KILI(FM), Porcupine, South Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-548A1.txt
    • dispute the measurements made by the Honolulu agents. Instead, Visionary argues that it did not willfully violate the Commission's RFR rules, and that it believed, in good faith, its site was in a remote non-accessible area with adequate warning signs. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Visionary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-549A1.txt
    • general population limits. Entravision also argues that the alleged violation was neither willful nor repeated, and that it made good faith efforts to comply with the requests made by Tampa Office agents during and after the inspections conducted by that office. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-54A1.txt
    • license, but also its unauthorized operation of a radio station for more than one month after the Station's license had expired before it requested an STA for continued operation, pending consideration of its untimely renewal application. 7. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering A&L's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-550A1.txt
    • the penthouse roof; that the alleged violation was not willful, as Infinity had no prior knowledge of the RFR violations at the Park Tower site; and that the Tampa Office incorrectly assessed an upward adjustment of the forfeiture amount against Infinity. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Infinity's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-555A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 72348 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420011 FRN: 0004284923 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 12, 2007 Released: February 14, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find WLBB Broadcasting, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSCW(TV), Wichita, Kansas (the ``Station'') , apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required records concerning its compliance
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-556A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 27431 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420014 FRN: 0004249850 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 12, 2007 Released: February 14, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Ramar Communications II, Ltd. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KUPT(TV), Hobbs, New Mexico (the ``Station''), apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) and 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place all required records concerning its compliance with the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-557A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 82613 NAL/Acct. No. 0741421112 FRN: 0004249850 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 12, 2007 Released: February 14, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Ramar Communications II, Ltd (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTLL-TV, Durango, Colorado (the ``Station''), apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of the Station KTLL-TV's Children's Television Programming
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-559A1.txt
    • Toussaint stated in the response that documentation in support of his request would be submitted under separate cover. To date, no such documentation has been submitted. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,Gary Toussaint IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 301. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-560A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Jack W. Ivy, Sr., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WRMG(AM), Red Bay, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-561A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Muscle Shoals Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WZZA(AM), Tuscumbia, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-562A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio Station WSNT, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNT-FM, Sandersville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-563A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Jesse C. Ross and Ernestine A. Ross. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of their license for Station WSAO(AM), Senatobia, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-564A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cactus Communications, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KKAY(AM), White Castle, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-565A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Joel J. Kinlow (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station KAVH(FM), Eudora, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-566A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Nicholls State University, (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNSU(FM), Thibodaux, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-567A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of New World Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KCLF(AM), New Roads, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-585A1.txt
    • it the captioned applications of CARE Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KHGN(FM) and FM Translator Station K220CN, Kirksville, Missouri (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-586A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Richard P. Marburger (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station W232AI, Niles, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-588A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wayne Kowalski (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W251AD, Alpena, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-589A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Centerville City Schools Board of Education (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WCWT-FM, Centerville, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-590A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Heidelberg College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHEI(FM), Tiffin, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-591A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lake Superior State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WLSO(FM), Sault Sainte Marie (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-592A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Victory & Power Ministries (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WPFC(AM), Baton Rouge, Lousiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-593A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Hope College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WTHS(FM), Holland, Michigan, (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-602A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 83707 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420013 FRN: 0004249850 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 8, 2007 Released: February 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Ramar Communications II, Ltd. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTEL-TV, Carlsbad, New Mexico (the ``Station''), apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the station's public inspection file all required Children's Television
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-603A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 37099 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420009 FRN: 0011666849 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 8, 2007 Released: February 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that LeSea Broadcasting of Tulsa, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KWHB(TV), Tulsa, Oklahoma (the ``Station''), apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and (e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-604A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 42359 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420008 FRN: 0004953022 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 8, 2007 Released: February 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Simons Broadcasting, LP (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTAQ(TV), Greenville, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(5), (e)(11)(i), and (e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file its 2005 Biennial
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-611A1.txt
    • the captioned applications of Northwestern College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations W230AN, Hayward, Wisconsin, and K218AR, Washburn, Wisconsin (together, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-612A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Ralla Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WCAZ(AM), Carthage, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-613A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Public Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WOJB(FM), Reserve, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-614A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Faith Fellowship Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WJHV-LP, Fairbury, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-615A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of TEA-VISZ, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W272AY, Park Falls, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-616A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Living Word Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W232AR, Marshfield, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-618A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Northeastern Illinois University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WZRD(FM), Chicago, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-619A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Calvary Chapel (Church) of Menomonie (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WRJF-LP, Menomonie, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-621A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Alacca Bible Conference, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K213BN, Orofino, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-622A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Alacca Bible Conference (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K215AB, Kamiah, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-623A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of La Promesa Foundation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K217CM, Clayton, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-624A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K217EY, Laramie, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-625A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K220AE, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-626A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K257DH, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-627A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K265AV, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-628A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K296BJ, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-629A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K272AR, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-631A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of First IV Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KGAF(AM), Gainesville, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-632A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Sam Houston State University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KSHU(FM), Huntsville, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-633A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Texas Southern University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KTSU(FM), Houston, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-634A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of West Texas A&M University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KWTS(FM), Canyon, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-635A1.txt
    • Biblical Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KFFF(AM), Boone, Iowa, formerly, KFGQ(AM) and Station KFFF-FM, Boone, Iowa, formerly, KFGO-FM (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the KFFF(AM) and KFFF-FM public inspection files. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-643A1.txt
    • continue operations. By operating its earth station for approximately nine months without an instrument of authorization, La Carpa has apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. La Carpa also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-644A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of American Media Investments, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KBZI(FM), Deerfield, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-645A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wennes Communications Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KVIK(FM), Decorah, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-646A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Central University of Iowa Central College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KCUI(FM), Pella, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-647A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Grinnell College Trustees of Iowa (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KDIC(FM), Grinnell, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-648A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wennes Communications Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KHPP(AM), Waukon, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-649A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wennes Communications Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNEI-FM, Waukon, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-650A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Ritenour Consolidated School District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KRHS(FM), Overland, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-652A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of the Board of Regents, Northwest Missouri State University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KRNW(FM), Chillicothe, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-653A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cornell College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KRNL-FM, Mount Vernon, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-657A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 22201 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420020 FRN: 0003576485 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 8, 2007 Released: March 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Tribune Television Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KDAF(TV), Dallas, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-658A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 7841 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420010 FRN: 0001833516 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 8, 2007 Released: March 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Burlington Television Acquisition Corp. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KGWB-TV, Burlington, Iowa (the ``Station''), apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required TV issues/programs lists,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-660A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of J. Doering Communications (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K252CQ, Northern Apple Valley, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-661A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Davis Community Television (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KDRT-LP, Davis, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-662A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of River Delta Unified School District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KRVH(FM), Rio Vista, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-663A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Buena Park School District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KBPK(FM), Buena Park, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-664A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bruce Macafee (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station K261AY, Bridgeport, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-665A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of San Juan Unified School District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KYDS(FM), Sacramento, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-666A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of San Rafael High School (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KSRH, San Rafael, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-667A1.txt
    • rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between telecommunications service providers. Accordingly, we find that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-670A1.txt
    • Good News Radio (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K205BH, Victorville, California, K201AR, Banning, California, and K209AK, Palm Springs, California, (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for each of the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-673A1.txt
    • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Duckworth submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Duckworth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-682A1.txt
    • Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K220BW, Kellogg, Etc., Idaho, K269DU, Sandpoint, Idaho, and K220BX, Coeur D'Alene, Idaho (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-683A1.txt
    • of Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K242AC, K247AC, and K262AA, all licensed to Bagdad, Arizona (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-684A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Monty C. Stratton (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K244DU, St. George, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-685A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Newmont Gold Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K253AC, Eureka, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-686A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Christian Radio Translator Association/Salmon, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K257DJ, Salmon, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-687A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Kamiak Butte Translator Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K237CO, Moscow, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-688A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Uintah County (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K257AA, Vernal, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-697A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Carpenter Translator Group (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station DK299AM, Carpenter, South Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-698A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Boulder TV Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K296AN, Boulder, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-699A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Colby Community College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KTCC(FM), Colby, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-700A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Covenant Life Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KLGB-LP, Enid, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-702A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of La Tremenda Radio Mexico, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KZUE(AM), El Reno, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-703A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of New Castle Broadcasting Service, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WHHC-LP, New Castle, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-704A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Friends of Christian Radio (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K228DI, Sidney, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-705A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Top O' Texas Educational Broadcasting Foundation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K202AG, Elk City, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-706A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Christian Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KCMI(FM), Terrytown, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-707A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Big Sky Owners Association, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257AE, West Fork, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-708A1.txt
    • application of Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K201FP, Arapaho, and K216FR, Clinton, Oklahoma (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-739A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 24749 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420018 FRN: 0001887363 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 8, 2007 Released: March 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Multimedia Holdings Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KNAZ-TV, Flagstaff, Arizona (the ``Station''), apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's Television Programming Reports. Based upon
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-740A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 29015 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420019 FRN: 0003756921 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 8, 2007 Released: March 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that HIC Broadcast, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KFWD(TV), Fort Worth, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required TV issues/programs lists,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-742A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 70492 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420016 FRN: 0006252746 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 8, 2007 Released: March 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KAZH License, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KAZH(TV), Baytown, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's Television Programming Reports. We also
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-743A1.txt
    • ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 77719 NAL/Acct. No. 0741420017 FRN: 0001756659 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 8, 2007 Released: March 9, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Woods Communications Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KWBZ-TV, Wolfforth, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) and 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required records concerning
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-745A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Lewis and Clark Translator Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K288EU, Lewiston and Clark, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-746A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of American Asset Management, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KHOB(AM), Hobbs, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-747A1.txt
    • captioned application of Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KRMH(FM), Red Mesa, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-748A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Black Hill Christian Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K292DN, Newcastle, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-749A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Luna County Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KDEM(FM), Deming, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-750A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Zuni Communications Authority (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KSHI(FM), Zuni, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-751A1.txt
    • Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K296AQ and K292AR, Soda Springs, Idaho and FM translator Station K288AS, Bancroft, Idaho (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-773A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Northwestern College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K232BC, Mankato, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-774A1.txt
    • license for noncommercial educational Station KOTO(FM), Telluride, Colorado; and FM Translator Stations K207AS, Pandora, Colorado; K207AT, Norwood, Colorado; K288BM, Placerville, Colorado, and K207AU, Ophir, Colorado (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for each of the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-775A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Independent School District #283 (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KDXL(FM), St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-776A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Brigham Young University - Idaho (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K220GV, West Yellowstone, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-777A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Range Paging, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K280AT, Ely, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-778A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of The Lake Hill Translator Group (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K264AG, Dillon, Colorado (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-779A1.txt
    • the captioned application of North Fork Christian Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K219AH, Paonia & Hotchkiss, Colorado (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-780A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Valley Public Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K205AZ, Glenwood Springs, Colorado (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-781A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Swan Hill T.V., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K216BE, Ferndale, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-782A1.txt
    • the captioned application of Jefferson County Disaster & Emergency Services (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KESW-LP, Whitehall, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-788A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Perry Broadcasting Systems (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBSG(AM), Lajas, Puerto Rico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-789A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Mark Hellinger (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WABV(AM), Abbeville, South Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-790A1.txt
    • of Chapel of the Holy Spirit Church and Bible College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WKCL(FM), Ladson, South Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-791A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Communications Systems, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WFMI(FM), Southern Shores, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-792A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Tri-County Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WPFL(FM), Century, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-793A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of John Reynolds (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W267AD, Bryson City, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-794A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Manati Radio Corp. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WMNT(AM), Manati, Puerto Rico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-795A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Faith Enterprises, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WZOO(AM), Asheboro, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in the unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-796A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Synewave Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WUCR-LP, Lake Butler, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-797A1.txt
    • before it the captioned applications of Landmark Baptist Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for Stations WLVF(AM) and WLVF-FM, Haines City, Florida (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-811A1.txt
    • Order. The Enforcement Bureau reduced the forfeiture amount from $21,000 to $16,800, based on 127, Inc.'s history of compliance with the Rules. 127, Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining 127, Inc.'s petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-856A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio Station WSNT, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNT(AM), Sandersville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-857A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Piedmont Radio Co. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WPID(AM), Piedmont, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-858A1.txt
    • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Barnesville Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBAF(AM), Barnesville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-859A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Stocks Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WFHK(AM), Pell City, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-860A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of The University of Georgia (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WUOG(FM), Athens, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-861A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Powerhouse of Deliverance Church, Inc., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WGML(AM), Hinesville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-862A1.txt
    • that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo's Petition for Reconsideration, filed February 13, 2006, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-870A1.txt
    • mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Finally, we also decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture based on WADV's history of compliance. WADV previously has received three Notices of Violation, two of which included violations for over-powered operation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, WADV Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-879A1.txt
    • however, that imposition of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship on him and his spouse. In support of his inability to pay claim, Mr. Granda submitted federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act , and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Granda's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-881A1.txt
    • in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Mr. Metzger submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Metzger's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-882A1.txt
    • repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Rama submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its remedial good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Rama's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-887A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Raven Ridge Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W221AR, Coshocton, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-888A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Grace Baptist Church (``Grace'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBLW(FM), Gaylord, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-889A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Little Miami Local Schools (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WLMH(FM), Morrow, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-890A1.txt
    • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Melodynamic Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for WCER(AM), Canton, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-891A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Oberlin College Student Network, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WOBC-FM, Oberlin, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-892A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Adrian College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVAC-FM, Adrian, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-917A1.txt
    • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Elenbaas Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KMZK(AM), Billings, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-918A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Media Associates, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KBJM(AM), Lemmon, South Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-919A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Gallatin Valley Witness, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KGVW(AM), Belgrade, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-920A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Schweitzer Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNDC(AM), Hettinger, North Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-921A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Thompson Falls TV District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K280BE, Thompson Falls, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-922A1.txt
    • it the captioned application of Big Sky Owners Association, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257AE, West Fork, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-923A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Family Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257CI, Decorah, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-924A1.txt
    • before it the captioned application of Rolla Chinese Christian Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KJTR-LP, Rolla, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-926A1.txt
    • is beyond the parameters of the station's authorization. Lockheed Martin concedes that it operated earth station E970322 without Commission authorization constantly and regularly from April 4, 2006 through June 7, 2006. By operating its earth station without authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-934A1.txt
    • that were previously considered and rejected will be denied. Farmworkers raises four arguments in its Petition, which we address in turn. In its first argument, Farmworkers alleges that the Western Region erred in assessing the ``maximum forfeiture'' of $8,000 for what was ``clearly a mistake.'' Farmworkers argues that the Forfeiture Order cites to its logging violations and states that Section 1.80 of the Rules requires only a $1,000 forfeiture amount for logging violations. We disagree. Section 1.80 of the Rules lists $8,000 as the base, and not the maximum, forfeiture for ``EAS equipment not installed or operational.'' As the Western Region determined in the Forfeiture Order, Farmworkers failed to produce ``evidence to refute the San Diego Office's finding that no audio
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-957A1.txt
    • conclude that the violation here primarily occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive and that the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-958A1.txt
    • Entercom apparently violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Entercom attributes these violations to employee error. Inadvertence or employee oversight does not excuse Entercom from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. Licensees are responsible for the actions of their employees. 8. The statutory maximum forfeiture for Entercom's apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 is $32,500. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the contest rule is $4,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-959A1.txt
    • NAL Account No. 200732080019 FRN No. 0008130353 Facility ID No. 73259 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 2, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), Licensee of Station WMGO(AM), Canton, Mississippi (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, and later broadcasting that telephone conversation, without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-960A1.txt
    • may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that CBS Radio Inc. of Philadelphia, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, CBS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-962A1.txt
    • in this case. Specifically, we conclude that the violation occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive or to favor a particular contestant or class of contestants. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Access 1 New Jersey License Company, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-976A1.txt
    • his response to the NAL, Truatt reports that WTBQ's EAS equipment is fully operational and that the partial repairs he made to the equipment prior to the agent's inspection warrant a reduction in the forfeiture. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-989A1.txt
    • days as the standard period for carrier responses to informal consumer complaints. Id. 47 C.F.R. �1.718. 47 C.F.R. �1.717. Establishment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Informal Complaints Are Filed By Consumers Against Entities Regulated by the Commission, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3919, 3932 (2002). 47 U.S.C. �503(b); 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(2). The Commission's rules establish $4,000 as the base forfeiture for a failure to respond to Commission communications. 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4)(note). The Commission has reserved the right, however, to deviate from the base forfeitures based on the circumstances of a specific case. See, e.g., The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-103A1.txt
    • repeated violation of Section 17.1125(a) of the Rules and the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Claro submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Claro's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1047A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 58559 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420045 FRN: 0001688712 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 22, 2008 Released: May 27, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Sage Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KIDU-LP, Brownwood, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to file with the Commission, place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1048A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 58561 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420042 FRN: 0001688712 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 20, 2008 Released: May 21, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Sage Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KIDZ-LP, Abilene, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to file with the Commission, place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1049A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 58568 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420041 FRN: 0001688712 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 20, 2008 Released: May 21, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Sage Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KIDT-LP, Stamford, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to file with the Commission, place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1051A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 58571 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420040 FRN: 0001688712 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 5, 2008 Released: May 6, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Sage Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KIDV-LP, Albany, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to file with the Commission, place in the Station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1057A1.txt
    • telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1069A1.txt
    • tax returns from 2004 and 2005 reflecting gross revenues and contributions from October 1, 2004 through September 31, 2006; a statement reflecting the current account status of Side by Side; and an Unpaid Bills Detail as of February 29, 2008. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-106A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Widener University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WDNR(FM), Chester, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1070A1.txt
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Whitley. Whitley has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Trevor Whitely IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Trevor Whitley at
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1073A1.txt
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Clemons. Clemons has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Charles Clemons IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Charles Clemons at
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-107A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of Louis J. Maierhofer (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W276AS, Martinsburg, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-108A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of WDAC Radio Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W280CQ, Shillington, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1091A1.txt
    • before us a June 18, 2007, Informal Objection (``Objection'') filed jointly by Gary E. Burns (``Burns'') and 3 Daughters Media, Inc. (``3 Daughters'' and collectively, the ``Objectors''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we grant in part and deny in part the Objection, conclude that Centennial Licensing II is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), and grant the Applications as conditioned herein. II.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1092A1.txt
    • (``Christian Voice''), licensee of formerly noncommercial educational television Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arises from a complaint filed with the Commission in September 2003, alleging that then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM) broadcast prohibited underwriting announcements during the month of August 2003. In April 2004, after the complaint had been filed, but before the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') had inquired into this matter, Christian Voice sought to modify its station's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1093A1.txt
    • FCC license or authorization from a licensed cellular or PCS provider is required to operate its devices, it was obligated to respond fully and completely to the Bureau's inquiry. Therefore, Digital Antenna's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1096A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1096A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1096A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Sunflower Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station KINO(AM), Winslow, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1097A1.txt
    • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Snow College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KAGJ(FM), Ephraim, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1098A1.txt
    • for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations W253AF, Bennington, Vermont ,W242AL, Buskirk, New York, W288BF, Troy, New York, and W289AL, Troy, New York (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Stations, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act,
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-109A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Timber Ridge Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W215AA, Millersburg, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1102A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 51570 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420046 FRN: 0002063931 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 22, 2008 Released: May 27, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Viacom Stations Group of Detroit Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WKBD(TV), Detroit, Michigan (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1103A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73205 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420044 FRN: 0005019781 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 20, 2008 Released: May 21, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WLFL Licensee, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WLFL(TV), Raleigh, North Carolina (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1104A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73042 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420047 FRN: 0006578413 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 22, 2008 Released: May 27, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that ACME Television Licenses of Wisconsin, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WIWB(TV), Suring, Wisconsin (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1105A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 71082 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420043 FRN: 0005575394 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 20, 2008 Released: May 21, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WATE, G.P. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WATE-TV, Knoxville, Tennessee (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-110A1.txt
    • Commission has before it the captioned application of WDAC Radio Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W280CP, Wagontown, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-112A1.txt
    • potential sources of income. We have reviewed the personal income tax returns submitted by Ramos and we find that the forfeiture represents a percentage of gross income that falls within the range that has been found acceptable. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eliandro B. Ramos IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1143A1.txt
    • Forfeiture to ASA in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a). ASA submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining ASA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1145A1.txt
    • ``minor violation'' for which the Commission in past cases has merely issued an ``admonishment.'' In addition, SCC argues that it is entitled to an admonishment rather than a forfeiture based on its record of overall compliance. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1146A1.txt
    • ``minor violation'' for which the Commission in past cases has merely issued an ``admonishment.'' In addition, SCC argues that it is entitled to an admonishment rather than a forfeiture based on its record of overall compliance. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1149A1.txt
    • necessary notice of this repositioning to KMVU and its cable subscribers, and due to its failure to provide 30 days' notice of KMVU's eventual deletion to its cable subscribers and the relevant franchising authority. IV. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Northland Cable Television, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) for willfully violating Section 614(b)(9) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 534(b)(9), and Section 76.1601, Note 1 to Section 76.1601, and Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-114A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Paula. Paula has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Nicolas Paula IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and willfully violating Section 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1150A1.txt
    • necessary notice of this repositioning to KMVU and its cable subscribers, and due to its failure to provide 30 days' notice of KMVU's eventual deletion to its cable subscribers and the relevant franchising authority. IV. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Northland Cable Television, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) for willfully violating Section 614(b)(9) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 534(b)(9), and Section 76.1601, Note 1 to Section 76.1601, and Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1187A1.txt
    • of public service, which should mitigate the forfeiture, that the statutory factors requires reduction of the forfeiture, that the fine is disproportionate to the nature of the offense, and that Southern does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1188A1.txt
    • filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on January 16, 2008. In their Response, the Campos argue that they were not aware of the severity of the violations, and that they do not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1189A1.txt
    • in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Ross submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Ross' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1190A1.txt
    • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Phillips. Phillips has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Phillips Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Phillips Broadcasting, LLC
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.txt
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.txt
    • the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-11A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-11A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-11A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35959 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420021 FRN: 0001563956 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 2, 2008 Released: January 4, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KXLF Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KXLF-TV, Butte, Montana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1200A1.txt
    • several weeks later. While Licensee does not claim inability to pay, it states that payment of the forfeiture will come at the expense of expenditures necessary to operate the Station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.txt
    • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 '' `` '' � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1209A1.txt
    • of the Rules, that it took steps to remedy the violation as soon as it was notified of it, that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1225A1.txt
    • to its failure to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership if antenna structure number 1023390, Western Slope argues that its violation resulted in no harm and that the forfeiture should be cancelled in favor of an admonishment. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1226A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Action. Despite evidence that Action received the NAL, Action has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Action Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Action Communications, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1227A1.txt
    • amount or increased to the statutory maximum when the adjustment criteria are considered based on the facts of the case.'' However, the Commission did not include ``lack of harm'' in its downward adjustment criteria. It did include ``substantial harm'' as part of its upward adjustment criteria. The adjustment factors included by the Commission in its downward adjustment criteria, in Section 1.80, are: (1) minor violation; (2) good faith or voluntary disclosure; (3) history of compliance; and (4) inability to pay. We find that the Region properly considered the downward adjustment criteria and concluded that MRA's violation, which, by its own admission resulted in co-channel interference, and which consisted of WPPF233 operating repeatedly at more than twenty times its authorized power was
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-122A1.txt
    • 1), Frequency Allocations and Radio Treaty Matters; General Rules and Regulations (47 C.F.R. Part 2), Tariffs (47 C.F.R. Part 61), Miscellaneous Rules Relating to Common Carriers (47 C.F.R. Part 64), Radio Broadcast Services (47 C.F.R. Part 73), and Stations in the Maritime Services (47 C.F.R. Part 80). Specifically, this Order corrects bank addresses in several provisions of Sections 0.401(b), 0.482, 1.80(h), 1.227(b), 1.907, 1.1102, 1.1103, 1.1104, 1.1105, 1.1106, 1.1107, 1.1152, 1.1153, 1.1154, 1.1155, 1.1156, 1.1166(d), 1.10001, 1.10009, 2.913(b), 61.14(b), 61.17(b), 61.20(b), 61.32(b), 61.153(b), 64.709(d), and 80.59(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.401(b), 0.482, 1.80(h), 1.227(b), 1.907, 1.1102, 1.1103, 1.1104, 1.1105, 1.1106, 1.1107, 1.1152, 1.1153, 1.1154, 1.1155, 1.1156, 1.1166(d), 1.10001, 1.10009, 2.913(b), 61.14, 61.17, 61.20, 61.32, 61.153, 64.709, and 80.59(c).
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1233A1.txt
    • file, including quarterly issues/programs lists. We determine that DBC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules based on its admission that issues/programs lists were purged and that these lists could not be recreated. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining DBC's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1254A1.txt
    • willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Glass submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Glass' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1291A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1299A1.txt
    • forfeiture for inability to pay, stating that he lives on a fixed income and is disabled. In support of his claim of inability to pay, on February 19, 2008, Mr. Ryan submitted financial documentation for the years 2007, 2006 and 2005. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 302(b)
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1314A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1326A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 47906 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420048 FRN: 0009825456 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 11, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that NBC Telemundo License Co. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KNBC(TV), Los Angeles, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1346A1.txt
    • Account No. 200832080089 Facility ID No. 29911 FRN No. 0011343191 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 9, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that ProActive Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KQQB-FM, Newport, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast and later broadcasting that telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based upon our review
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1356A1.txt
    • provide service.''). See, e.g., Lancaster Communications, Inc. Request for Waiver of Installment Payment Rules for Auction No. 7 and Reinstatement of License, Application for Assignment of 900 MHz Specialized Radio Licenses, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 2438, 2443-44 � 14 (WTB 2007) (``Lancaster Order''). All licensees are obligated to know the Commission's rules. Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,099 � 22 (1997) (``The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know and comply with all of the Commission's rules.''). See also 47 U.S.C. � 312(a)(4) (2004) (allowing the Commission to revoke licenses for ``willful or repeated'' violations of, or failure to
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1364A1.txt
    • Auction of FM Broadcast Construction Permits Scheduled for November 1, 2005; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No. 62, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 10492, 10499 (WTB/MB 2005); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Reminder of Anti-Collusion Rule Obligations, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 22,880, 22,881 (WTB 2004). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f). Peninsula, 17 FCC Rcd at 2832 � 1 n.3. See, e.g., Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules - Competitive Bidding Procedures, Seventh Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 17,546, 17,546-47 � 2 (2001). Lotus cites the Bureau's statement in David L. Nace indicating that the enforcement of the anti-collusion rule will turn on a full examination of the
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1366A1.txt
    • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Global Access's failure to respond to the Commission's Notice as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. Global Access will have an opportunity to submit evidence and
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1369A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1373A1.txt
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1376A1.txt
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1382A1.txt
    • delivering at least two telephone solicitations to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2),
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1383A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Locators, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Locators, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1385A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that First Alliance Security is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that First Alliance Security is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1387A1.txt
    • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1388A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1389A1.txt
    • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Modena Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1394A1.txt
    • for Forfeiture to Omni in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a). Omni submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Omni's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1395A1.txt
    • amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Broadcasters submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Broadcasters' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1398A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1399A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 77063 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420049 FRN: 0004995882 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 16, 2008 Released: June 18, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Mercury Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KMTW(TV), Hutchinson, Kansas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1400A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73292 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420050 FRN: 0002538445 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 16, 2008 Released: June 18, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Hearst-Argyle Properties, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WMUR-TV, Manchester, New Hampshire (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.670 and 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1415A1.txt
    • has before it the captioned application of Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBUQ(FM), Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1419A1.txt
    • that time period. It further notes that the Station's operating budget is $4,000, a substantial portion of which was used to repair a remote transmitter that was hit by lightning. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1420A1.txt
    • several weeks later. While Licensee does not claim inability to pay, it states that payment of the forfeiture will come at the expense of expenditures necessary to operate the Station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1423A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1424A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1435A1.txt
    • On January 17, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') reduced the forfeiture based on Claro's history of compliance with the rules and released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Claro's petition for reconsideration on February 19, 2008, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Claro's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-143A1.txt
    • we remind Ms. Rodriguez that prior knowledge of the law is not necessary in determining whether a violation existed. As a licensee, Ms. Rodriguez will be held responsible for any future violations of the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Family Car Service, Inc. is HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Lillian Rodriguez at her address of record and to counsel for Lillian Rodriguez at his address of record.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1445A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 29706 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420051 FRN: 0004999611 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 23, 2008 Released: June 25, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Spartan-TV, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WHTV(TV), Jackson, Michigan (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.txt
    • This TV has only an `analog' broadcast tuner so will require a converter box after February 17, 2009 to receive over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna, because of the transition to digital broadcasting on that date. (It should continue to work as before with cable and satellite TV systems, gaming consoles, VCRs, DVD players, and similar products.). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) w x y z � (R) � � y z (R) � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1460A1.txt
    • the relevant factors when assessing the forfeiture to One Mart. The Commission has already determined that the ``adjustment criteria listed in . . . the guidelines reflect the factors outlined in the statute.'' For forfeitures assessed under Section 503 of the Act, as this one is, the adjustment factors included by the Commission in its downward adjustment criteria, in Section 1.80, are: (1) minor violation; (2) good faith or voluntary disclosure; (3) history of compliance; and (4) inability to pay. We find that the Region properly considered the downward adjustment criteria and concluded that One Mart's violation, which consisted of KEVT(AM) failure to ensure the operational readiness of its EAS equipment from November 2005 through August 2006, and its acknowledgment that
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1468A1.txt
    • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that General Equipment & Supply is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-146A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 25382 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420024 FRN: 0002147155 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 23, 2008 Released: January 24, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Griffin Entities, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KWTV(TV), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1471A1.txt
    • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Clouden. Clouden has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Richard Clouden IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Richard Clouden at his address of record. FEDERAL
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1478A1.txt
    • regarding the school's financial condition and the station's budget, the Commission canceled the licensee's forfeiture based on financial hardship. Licensee asserts these reasons, in addition to its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1479A1.txt
    • as of August 20, 2002. Licensee further asserts that it is essentially being fined twice for the same violation, since the Stations simulcast some of the same programming. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amounts proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-148A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73333 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420025 FRN: 0009825456 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 23, 2008 Released: January 24, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that NBC Telemundo License Co. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WNJU(TV), Linden, New Jersey (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-14A1.txt
    • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1505A1.txt
    • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $18,000 to Mr. Doe. Mr. Doe has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, John Doe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violation of Sections 301 and 325 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Doe will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1506A1.txt
    • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 10324 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420052 FRN: 0007632904 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 30, 2008 Released: July 2, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Channel Eleven, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WETV-LP, Murfreesboro, Tennessee (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.671 of the Rules, by failing to air programming specifically designed to serve the educational
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1508A1.txt
    • ($24,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.845 of the Rules and the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Halifax submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Halifax's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1510A1.txt
    • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Rodriguez. Rodriguez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Frank Rodriguez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Frank Rodriguez at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1528A1.txt
    • (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $12,000 to D-Mitch. D-Mitch has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, D-Mitch Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. D-Mitch will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
  • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.txt
    • be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS Blocker (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. � 302(c); 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 / - . 0 3 ?
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1565A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1566A1.txt
      • a danger to the public. The chief engineer further states that he is not sure exactly how the gate became open, but believes that it may have resulted from a rotten gate latch that blew open from snow and wind. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Radio Plus's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1576A1.txt
      • Application. However, the Bureau finds that Riverside did, in fact, demonstrate a lack of candor on the Modification Application in violation of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by the authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Riverside is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). II. BACKGROUND Riverside originally submitted an application to the Commission for a new NCE FM station in Newark, Ohio, on November
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-157A1.txt
      • information on the requirements of the RFA visit www.fcc.gov/ocbo. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. APPENDIX List of rules for review pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 610, for the year 1997. All listed rules are in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. PART 1-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SUBPART A-GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Brief Description: Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules sets forth who may be subject to a forfeiture penalty for violation of the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission, the limits on the amount of the forfeitures that may be assessed, guidelines for determining the amount of such forfeitures, and the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1598A1.txt
      • NAL/Acct. No. 200832080090 Facility ID No. 34421 FRN No. 0010028835 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 7, 2008 Released: July 7, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Capstar'' or ``Licensee''), former licensee of Station KFGO(AM), Fargo, North Dakota (the ``Station''), broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1605A1.txt
      • process of assembling and prioritizing creditors' claims against Twin Towers Broadcasting, Inc. Owner asserts that requiring full payment of the forfeiture would harm innocent creditors. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we cancel the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to David Ryder, Receiver for violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules IS HEREBY CANCELED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to David Ryder, Receiver at his address of record.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1628A1.txt
      • because there was no deception to the public. CBS also argues that the Commission should impose a burden on the complainant to show that he listened to the Station even though his address is outside the Station's listener area contours. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1647A1.txt
      • authorization (``STA'') on December 10, 2006, and that, since that time, it has assumed that the request would be answered by the FCC. Christian Family Network also claims that it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Christian Family Network's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1654A1.txt
      • revenues were approximately $30,000 in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Community claims that while revenues increased in 2004, they were still well short of $50,000. Community stated that it intended to submit documentation for these figures. It did not do so. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Community's Request, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. 5.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1655A1.txt
      • Licensee claims that imposing a forfeiture against licensees that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1656A1.txt
      • to the fact that Licensee has a ``perilously thin undesignated fund balanced of only approximately one percent (1%) of total expenses ... leaving essentially no room for error.'' Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1657A1.txt
      • Licensee claims that imposing a forfeiture against licensees that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1662A1.txt
      • license renewal application would have been considered timely filed. In the alternative, Licensee argues that the forfeiture amount be significantly reduced based on its ``good faith and diligence.'' License asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1663A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 27220 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420054 FRN: 0004981304 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 16, 2008 Released: July 22, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTVG(TV), Grand Island, Nebraska (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3615 of the Rules, by failing to file Biennial Ownership Reports with the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1666A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73701 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420057 FRN: 0009473927 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 28, 2008 Released: July 31, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Liberman Television of Dallas License Corp. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KMPX(TV), Decatur, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to file with the Commission, place
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1670A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-167A1.txt
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Ryzex's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2003, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Ryzex's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ryzex marketed two models of improperly labeled PDTs, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and PDT6846, within the past year. Ryzex's marketing of each of these two improperly labeled models
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1680A1.txt
      • license, E000584, to among other things, re-license the antennas previously associated with E970116. On January 23, 2008, the International Bureau granted ABS-CBN's modification application for earth station E000584. Also in its Response, ABS-CBN requests that we forego assessing a forfeiture in this case, or alternatively, assess a forfeiture that is substantially less than the base forfeiture amount established in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. In arguing for mitigation, ABS-CBN states that until the instant proceeding, it continuously operated all of its earth stations in full compliance with the Commission's rules and has never been subject to a Commission enforcement action related to the operation of its earth stations. ABS-CBN also asserts that during the period of unauthorized operation it did
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.txt
      • Extended Coverage High Frequency Transceivers, Public Notice 62882, 1996 WL 242469, available at <> (OET, rel. May 13, 1996) (``Notice''). Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. Under Section 2.1205, the required declaration may be filed electronically. In addition, the specific import conditions are set forth in Section 2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h C D j � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1686A1.txt
      • machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-168A1.txt
      • 2005. Moreover, Able Infosat admits that it continued to operate until it filed an STA request and an application on April 20, 2007. Thus, it appears that Able Infosat violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating its VSAT system in the United States without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1706A1.txt
      • Friendship in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Friendship submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Friendship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1708A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-170A1.txt
      • when Side by Side filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Side by Side violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1717A1.txt
      • Radio asserts that the November 28th incident was an ``isolated'' occurrence and ``is not part of a larger pattern.'' Additionally, Cox Radio asserts that it has retrained its studio operators on the transmission and reception of EAS tests and alerts to ensure that the events of November 28, 2007, are not repeated. dISCUSSION Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1726A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 19654 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420055 FRN: 0012634366 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 28, 2008 Released: July 31, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KSBY Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSBY(TV), San Luis Obispo, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(5), (e)(7), and (e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1727A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 49632 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420056 FRN: 0006160915 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 28, 2008 Released: July 31, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Alaska Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTVA(TV), Anchorage, Alaska (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1728A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 9739 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420058 FRN: 0004999017 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 5, 2008 Released: August 7, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Lenfest Broadcasting, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WMCN-TV, Atlantic City, New Jersey (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3615 of the Rules, by failing to file Biennial Ownership Reports. Based upon
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1738A1.txt
      • Licensee claims that imposing a forfeiture against licensees that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1739A1.txt
      • that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled or reduced on the ground of its inability to pay, and submits copies of its 2001, 2002, and 2003 federal income tax returns to establish its inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Tol-Tol's Request, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. 6.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1740A1.txt
      • to the main menu and click on "File Form." Licensee states that it then followed the staff member's instructions, completed the forms in the correct order, and made certain that it clicked on "File Form." DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Licensee's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-174A1.txt
      • some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the respondent's current financial status. Despite this explicit direction, Discovery has provided no documentation to support its claim that payment of the forfeiture will be burdensome. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Discovery Transportation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1750A1.txt
      • E872070 without Commission authority after August 28, 2007. By operating earth station E872070 without Commission authorization, Saga apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Saga also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1753A1.txt
      • Rules regarding the CB radio service. We caution Barber that failure to allow this inspection by the Portland Resident Agent Office will result in further sanctions and forfeitures for violation of Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jeremy William Barber, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 303(n) of the Act, and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Jeremy William Barber shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1754A1.txt
      • violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Kersnowski and his counsel received the NAL, Kersnowski has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael T. Kersnowski, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Michael T. Kersnowski shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1755A1.txt
      • cancelled because the KBMS antenna towers comply with Section 73.49 of the Rules. Bennett Broadcasting also argues that it did not willfully violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Bennett Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1757A1.txt
      • that its authorization did not expire by operation of Section 312(g) of the Act; that it had authority to operate KTMN pursuant to Section 307(c) of the Act; and that it does not have sufficient revenue to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A-O's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-175A1.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Grinton. Despite repeated contacts by the Seattle Office, Grinton has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, James J. Grinton, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 97.113(b) and Section 97.119(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1764A1.txt
      • upon learning that it was not in compliance with the Commission's public file Rules and implemented new measures to ensure future compliance. Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1766A1.txt
      • upon learning that it was not in compliance with the Commission's public file Rules and implemented new measures to ensure future compliance. Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-176A1.txt
      • thousand dollars ($15,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules. First Baptist submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining First Baptist's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1782A1.txt
      • failing to maintain a complete public inspection file, in violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MBR received the NAL, MBR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, MBR Licensee, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. MBR Licensee, LLC, shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1828A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-182A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1844A1.txt
      • Application. However, the Bureau finds that MSG failed to submit all of the required information on the Application detailing a ``complete and final understanding'' between the licensee and assignee. Therefore, in this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by the authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Mejia and MSG are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000). II. BACKGROUND Mejia and MSG submitted the Application on August 20, 2007. Pursuant to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1849A1.txt
      • omission of the list. Furthermore, the proper proceeding to address Neely's arguments regarding the significance of the issues/programs lists is a rulemaking proceeding, not the results of an informal survey submitted in the context of his Response. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering Neely's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1852A1.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Idalbert. Despite evidence that Idalbert received the NAL, Idalbert has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean Idalbert IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Jean Idalbert at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1859A1.txt
      • 73.3526 of the Rules based on its admission that the quarterly issues and programs lists for the second and third quarters of 2000 and the third and fourth quarters of 2001 were missing from its public file. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering Entercom's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1920A1.txt
      • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Cardinal's conduct has continued over a period that began during March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Cardinal's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 9.5(b) of the Rules. The Commission has, nevertheless, found that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1921A1.txt
      • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cardinal, the statutory maximum is $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. The Commission has imposed the statutory maximum penalty against common carriers for the intentional provision of incorrect material factual information. Because
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1925A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 12395 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420059 FRN: 0001582816 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 3, 2008 Released: September 5, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KHQ, Incorporated (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KNDO(TV), Yakima, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1926A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 12427 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420060 FRN: 0001582816 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 3, 2008 Released: September 5, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KHQ, Incorporated (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KNDU(TV), Richland, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1937A1.txt
      • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Microboards' conduct has continued over a period that began on March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Microboards' apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1951A1.txt
      • Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Leetek's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Leetek's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for marketing unauthorized equipment. In this case, Leetek marketed two models of unauthorized pager transmitter systems. Leetek's marketing of each of these unauthorized models is a separate, continuing violation. Based on the record of this proceeding and application of the statutory factors listed above, we propose a forfeiture of $14,000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1952A1.txt
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DCS's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2005 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DCS's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. As set forth in the confidential Appendix, DCS apparently marketed PDTs that were not labeled in accordance with Sections 2.909(d) and 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules. Although it is clear from the record that DCS has marketed such PDTs within the applicable one-year statute
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.txt
      • a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude that Oceanic is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(c) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1961A1.txt
      • forth above to the facts of this case, we conclude that LCD Digital is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $16,000 for failing to fully comply with the Consumer Alert labeling requirements in Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, LCD Digital Electronics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for violations of Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1969A1.txt
      • 12, 2008. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately six years without Commission authorization, Mathews Readymix apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Mathews Readymix also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1987A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. However, the Commission has substantial discretion in proposing forfeitures and has stressed that digital signal reception capability is of critical importance to a successful digital transition for the nation. In its previous DTV tuner cases, the Commission concluded that applying a proposed forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1996A1.txt
      • that it has reconstructed its public files so that they are now complete, and that in light of Licensee's ``previously spotless'' record of compliance with the rule, and its remedial efforts to prevent any future violations, the forfeitures should be reduced. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amounts proposed in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1997A1.txt
      • that it has reconstructed its public file so that it is now complete, and that in light of Licensee's ``previously spotless'' record of compliance with the rule, and its remedial efforts to prevent any future violations, the forfeiture should be reduced. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1998A1.txt
      • is warranted because it has rapidly taken steps to correct the violations, and prevent them from reoccurring, and it has no record of prior offenses. Licensee also states that a proposed forfeiture ``in any amount,'' would impose a substantial financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amounts proposed in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. It is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1999A1.txt
      • is warranted because it has rapidly taken steps to correct the violations, and prevent them from reoccurring, and it has no record of prior offenses. Licensee also states that a proposed forfeiture ``in any amount,'' would impose a substantial financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amounts proposed in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. It is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2042A1.txt
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CoachComm's conduct has continued over a period that began in May 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CoachComm's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. CoachComm marketed unauthorized radio frequency equipment. Specifically, CoachComm marketed one system that included the same RF transmitter in both the wireless headsets and command stations. For the apparent marketing of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.txt
      • provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 u v � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2060A1.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Kissi. Despite evidence that Kissi received the NAL, Kissi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Alexander Kissi at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2061A1.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Louis. Despite evidence that Louis received the NAL, Louis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Yvon Louis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Yvon Louis at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.txt
      • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 o p o p � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2085A1.txt
      • did not submit a response to the NAL, and on June 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. Mr. Doe, however, did submit a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Doe's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2086A1.txt
      • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. New World submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining New World's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2087A1.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mr. Aulabaugh. Mr. Aulabaugh has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mark V. Aulabaugh IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Aulabaugh will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2093A1.txt
      • for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of Section 54.418(a)'s notice requirements. The Commission has warned, however, that ``any omission of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant.'' Indeed, the Commission emphasized the importance of the ETC requirements
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2107A1.txt
      • full $8,000 for a limited number of violations is consistent with past Commission orders. We, therefore, see no reason to reduce the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL and find that the Station is liable for a forfeiture amount of $25,000. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 713, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2140A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Medical Services is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2141A1.txt
      • delivering at least one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2142A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2143A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2144A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2145A1.txt
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Universal Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Universal Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2158A1.txt
      • renewal of WJYK(AM)'s license, but also its unauthorized operation of a radio station for 10 weeks after the Station's license had expired before it obtained an STA for continued operation, pending consideration of its untimely renewal application. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering WMB's request, the statute, the rule, and our policy require that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2159A1.txt
      • has before it the captioned application of Michael G. Lewis (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station K296DW, Lone Pine, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2164A1.txt
      • are in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious in nature. Licensee also states that a 25% reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2165A1.txt
      • are in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious in nature. Licensee also states that a 25% reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-216A1.txt
      • timely prepared and were on a different floor of the main studio location but could not be located because of recent staff changes, and that Lazer has since modified its procedures concerning public inspection files for all of their stations. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Lazer's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-21A1.txt
      • granted May 31, 2007. By operating station WPOG498 for approximately two and one-half years without authorization, Richmond apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Richmond also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2219A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 72958 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420002 FRN: 0003775640 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 6, 2008 Released: October 14, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Winston Broadcasting Network, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WBNX-TV, Akron, Ohio (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2220A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73910 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420001 FRN: 0014361083 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 6, 2008 Released: October 14, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WPXI, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WPXI(TV), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2237A1.txt
      • Commission has assessed for similar violations, in contravention of Melody Music. Huerta also maintains that the forfeiture should be reduced because of Huerta's voluntary disclosure of the public file violations and his prior record of compliance with the Commission's rules. II. DISCUSSION. The forfeiture amounts proposed in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 73.3539
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2244A1.txt
      • it was filed 10 weeks after WBLT(AM)'s license had expired. Despite WBLT's assertion that it neither "ignored nor neglected its renewal obligation," we find that its violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules was willful and repeated. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering WBLT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2293A1.txt
      • No. 200932080012 Facility ID No. 4094 FRN No. 0008498685 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 16, 2008 Released: October 16, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that Rejoynetwork, LLC (``Rejoynetwork'' or the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WAAW(FM), Williston, South Carolina (the ``Station'') apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by broadcasting multiple telephone conversations without giving prior notice to the individuals being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on a review of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2296A1.txt
      • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $16,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2297A1.txt
      • Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 by broadcasting each recorded call twice. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We note that Spanish Broadcasting Systems, Inc., the parent company of each Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.txt
      • The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.txt
      • then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.txt
      • then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2306A1.txt
      • the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.47(a) of the Rules. BK submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining BK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2315A1.txt
      • No. MB200841410030 FRN: 0016335481 File No. BALH-20070820AGE FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: October 18, 2008 Released: October 20, 2008 By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) each to Luis A. Mejia (``Mejia'') and MSG Radio, Inc. (``MSG'') for their willful violation of Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') by failing to provide required information on the above-captioned application (``Application'') for the assignment of license of station WIAC-FM, San Juan, Puerto Rico (``Station'') from Mejia to MSG. On August 5, 2008, the Media Bureau (``Bureau'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) each to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2316A1.txt
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2335A1.txt
      • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Brahmin Broadcasting Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 1, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2341A1.txt
      • ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 69619 NAL/Acct. No.0941420003 FRN: 0003742632 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 28, 2008 Released: November 6, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that San Francisco Television Station KBCW Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KBCW(TV), San Francisco, California (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2342A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 23428 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420004 FRN: 0003471398 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 28, 2008 Released: November 6, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that The CW Television Stations Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSTW(TV), Tacoma, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2355A1.txt
      • than 90% of the authorized power, and failure to maintain a complete public inspection file. In its response, Viva does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests that we cancel the forfeiture in light of its remedial efforts. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Viva's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2391A1.txt
      • the Commission's Indecency Rules as well as the investigation by the Media Bureau considering the allegations in the informal objections to the renewal of Station WQAM(AM). ``Investigations and Hearings Division'' means the Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, acting on behalf of the Enforcement Bureau. ``NAL'' means Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), Miami, Florida (FCC 04-225), released November 23, 2004. ``Order'' or ``Adopting Order'' means an Order adopted by the Bureaus adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion or modification. ``Parties'' means Beasley and the Bureaus. ``Rules'' means the Commission's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2426A1.txt
      • should be reduced or cancelled since co-owned stations were in compliance with the Rules; that its corrective actions warrant a reduction; and that a reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Sun Valley
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2427A1.txt
      • should be reduced or cancelled since co-owned stations were in compliance with the Rules; that its corrective actions warrant a reduction; and that a reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Sun Valley
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2437A1.txt
      • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that XLNT Idea's conduct has continued over a period that began in August 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to XLNT Idea's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. As noted above, XLNT Idea marketed three devices prior to authorization: the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter, the Nexis 100AP Publisher, and the Xi440 CD/DVD Printer. We note, however, that the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter and the Nexis 100AP Publisher are identical except that the Nexis
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2443A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Western Aviation, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2444A1.txt
      • assessed against it is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious in nature; and that a reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Franklin College
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2445A1.txt
      • because the student volunteers had graduated and left the campus. Lastly, in support of its financial hardship arguments, Licensee submits an Exhibit stating its operating budget for years 2002-2005, along with the salaries of its General Managers during this time period. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2449A1.txt
      • operating radio transmitting equipment on land mobile channels reserved exclusively for use by public safety entities. In his response to the NAL, Doe does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Doe's response to the NAL and his statement of income, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2451A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2457A1.txt
      • find that the base forfeiture of $1,000 against SkyPort and its affiliates for the section 214 authorization and each of the two earth station licenses is appropriate and we propose a total forfeiture of $3,000. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SkyPort Global Communications, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 25.119 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2461A1.txt
      • dollars ($19,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.3526(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Star Power submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Star Power's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2477A1.txt
      • 22, 2004, but the completed application never appeared in the Commission's database. The error was later realized by the proposed assignee of the licenses and brought to Jason's attention, after which Jason, on August 26, 2004, correctly filed its renewal applications. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Jason's Request, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. 6.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.txt
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2503A1.txt
      • that it violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules and submitted a payment in the amount of $12,000 for those violations. Black Crow, however, requested cancellation or reduction of the remaining $11,000 proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Black Crow's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2508A1.txt
      • Iris argues that it did keep records of all its programming, albeit not in the form required by Section 73.3527 of the Rules, and that, in light of the circumstances here, the forfeiture amount is excessive. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Glen Iris's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2516A1.txt
      • seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 301 and 333 of the Act. Mr. Allred submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Allred's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2539A1.txt
      • intend to violate the rules to gain commercial advantage, that the complaint against his operation was the result of a personal controversy, and that there was no potential for interference from the unauthorized operation of one of the three stations. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2550A1.txt
      • fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.49, 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(a)(2) of the Rules. Perihelion submitted a response to the NAL requesting to pay the forfeiture in six installments. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Perihelion's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-25A1.txt
      • willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. Broadcasters, Inc. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Broadcasters, Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2625A1.txt
      • section 310(d) of the Act and section 25.119 of the Commission's rules. The fundamental issue in this case is whether FTH violated section 310(d) of the Act and Section 25.119 of the Commission rules by transferring 35 satellite earth station licenses without required Commission approval. We answer this question affirmatively. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, and under Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we therefore conclude that FTH is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $17,500. FTH admits that it failed to apply for Commission approval to transfer control of the satellite earth station licenses. In connection with the stock recapitalization, FTH applied for Commission approval to transfer FTH television broadcast licenses. Notwithstanding FTH's arguments, the Commission did not
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2626A1.txt
      • for public inspection. Furthermore, Cumulus has previously certified that except for the 4th quarter 1998 (just after it became licensee) it complied with Section 73.3526 of the Commission's Rules concerning all other quarterly issues/ programs lists. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Cumulus's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-262A1.txt
      • Account No. 200832080009 FRN No. 0009758095 Facility ID No. 36069 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 20, 2008 Released: February 20, 2008 By the Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Courier Communications Corp. (``Courier'' or the ``Licensee''), Licensee of Station WNOV(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the other party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2666A1.txt
      • (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $25,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of Sections 17.50, 73.49, 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2673A1.txt
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Multi-Tech's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2006 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Multi-Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Multi-Tech apparently marketed the CallFinder device without including in the user manual the consumer information regarding radio frequency interference required by Section 15.105(a) of the Rules. We note that a $7,000 forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2676A1.txt
      • its rivals to receive a dispositive preference. SOU is incorrect. The standards adopted to implement Section 307(b) in the context of mutually exclusive applications for noncommercial educational FM stations in the reserved band have no bearing in this proceeding. See Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 establishes a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form or information. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(4). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106(n) (``without special order of the Commission, the filing of a petition for reconsideration will not excuse any person from complying with any decision, order, or requirement of the Commission . . . .'');
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2690A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 5909 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420007 FRN: 0001571546 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 17, 2008 Released: December 19, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Blue Mountain Broadcasting Association (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station K22BI, Walla Walla, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2691A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 5914 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420006 FRN: 0001571546 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 17, 2008 Released: December 19, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Blue Mountain Broadcasting Association (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station K28FT, Walla Walla, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2692A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 5906 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420005 FRN: 0001571546 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 17, 2008 Released: December 19, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Blue Mountain Broadcasting Association (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station K36EW, College Place, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2693A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35283 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420008 FRN: 0004374252 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 17, 2008 Released: December 19, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KNVL-TV, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KJEP-CA, Nashville, Arkansas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.673 of the Rules, by failing to provide information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2694A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 64992 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420009 FRN: 0009605437 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 22, 2008 Released: December 23, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Louis Martinez Family Group, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KQUX-CA, Austin, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2698A1.txt
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to OMI. OMI submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture due to its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining OMI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-26A1.txt
      • thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.50 and 17.57 of the Rules. IBC submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining IBC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2715A1.txt
      • 4(j), 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by AMERI-KING Corporation, IS DISMISSED, and the Bureau's 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and the Bureau affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2724A1.txt
      • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Lazer Licensees, LLC's Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2727A1.txt
      • its Request, Saga argued that (1) the violations were not willful or repeated; (2) it is contrary to the public interest to assess a forfeiture for voluntary, self-reported violations; and (3) Commission precedent in similar circumstances is to admonish the licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Saga does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2732A1.txt
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Rentex is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Rentex is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2770A1.txt
      • failed to submit a response to the NAL. On October 17, 2008, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $16,000 forfeiture. On November 17, 2008, Rama filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2815A1.txt
      • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Christian Family Network's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART and the forfeiture is reduced to five thousand dollars ($5,000). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2826A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in former Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-287A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 2709 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420026 FRN: 0001734276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 4, 2008 Released: February 5, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Grant Media LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WEUX(TV), Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-297A1.txt
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Peak Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KQBE(FM), Ellensburg, Washington (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the KQBE(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-333A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 2710 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420027 FRN: 0001734276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 11, 2008 Released: February 12, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Grant Media LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WLAX(TV), La Crosse, Wisconsin (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-365A1.txt
      • ``minor violation'' for which the Commission in past cases has merely issued an ``admonishment.'' In addition, SCC argues that it is entitled to an admonishment rather than a forfeiture based on its record of overall compliance. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-368A1.txt
      • light outages. In this regard, it was Forever's ``omission'' that resulted in its willful operation of a monitoring system that could not detect single light outages, in violation of Section 17.47 of the Commission's Rules. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Forever of PA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-390A1.txt
      • ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for Class D noncommercial educational Station WFAR(FM) and FM translator Station W250AA, Danbury, Connecticut (individually, the ``Station'' and collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-392A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 53517 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420028 FRN: 0003766417 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 20, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Morris Network of Mississippi, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WXXV-TV, Gulfport, Mississippi (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-397A1.txt
      • one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered her telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-398A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Business Payment Systems, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,500.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Business Payment Systems, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-402A1.txt
      • AMERI-KING argues that it did not willfully violate Section 301, that it did not repeatedly violate Section 301, that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliance, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-403A1.txt
      • has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; that it made good faith and voluntary disclosures to the Commission; that it did not act alone in this matter; and that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliances. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-405A1.txt
      • ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Tampa Office has since learned that Mr. Gaye passed away. Because Mr. Gaye is no longer living, we cancel the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Henry Gaye IS HEREBY CANCELED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional Director, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 301. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832700006 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, January 9, 2008) (``NAL''). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. ��� 0.111,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-410A1.txt
      • that the renewal application submitted by the vendor was for its taxi dispatch service license. Five Star further asserts that it has fully cooperated in the Commission's investigation. Based on these facts, Five Star requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-416A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Blue Casa's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Blue Casa will
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-417A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Sprint Nextel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Sprint Nextel will
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-418A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Amp'd Mobile's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Amp'd Mobile will
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-419A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Link Systems' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Link Systems will
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-420A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cricket's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Cricket will have an
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-421A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cooperative Communications' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Cooperative Communications will
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-422A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Reduced Rate Long Distance's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. Reduced
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-423A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Total Call's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. Total Call will
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-424A1.txt
      • orders. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. West Star's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of the six informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and letter orders warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-425A1.txt
      • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. WorldOne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. WorldOne will have an opportunity to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-426A1.txt
      • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITEG's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. ITEG will have an opportunity to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-427A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Alltel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. Alltel will have an
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-428A1.txt
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. AT&T's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $96,000. AT&T will have an
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-432A1.txt
      • amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules. Pittman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pittman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-442A1.txt
      • a CB station in his home and he refused to allow the agent to inspect his station. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Donald Winton IS DISMISSED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Donald Winton IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225) for violation of Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Donald Winton at his
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-448A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-448A2.txt
      • AM Broadcast Antenna (85 foot with Valcosphere) Operating Frequency: 1200 kHz 0 Degree Radial Point Distance Time Field Strength Desig. (km) Date (local) (mV/m) 1 0.25 12/5/05 1618 450 2 0.45 12/5/05 1606 220 3 0.62 12/5/05 1515 185 4 0.75 12/5/05 1510 145 5 1.00 12/5/05 1505 110 6 1.25 12/5/05 1456 100 7 1.50 12/5/05 1445 80.0 8 1.80 12/5/05 1441 62.0 9 2.25 12/5/05 1437 50.0 10 2.50 12/5/05 1434 43.0 11 3.00 12/5/05 1428 33.0 12 4.00 12/5/05 1424 21.5 13 5.00 12/5/05 1418 13.5 14 7.00 12/5/05 1416 10.0 15 8.00 12/5/05 1408 7.00 16 9.50 12/5/05 1404 6.60 17 11.00 12/5/05 1359 6.00 18 13.00 12/5/05 1354 5.20 19 15.00 12/5/05 1350 3.30 Figure 1
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-457A1.txt
      • Manning's Response and the record, we find that Manning did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Manning Municipal Communications and Television System Utilities, in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-458A1.txt
      • Commission to incur costs, with no reasonable hope of recovery. However, we emphasize that our decision to rescind the proposed forfeiture in no way exonerates Habla for its apparent violation of a Commission order. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the amount if four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Habla Communicaciones, Inc. in the March 30, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of a Commission directive IS CANCELED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-461A1.txt
      • or the Rules, that he was offering the Galaxy Model DX99V for sale as an amateur transceiver; that there are no court cases which prohibit him from marketing these devices; and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-462A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-463A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-466A1.txt
      • operating a base station at an unauthorized location in violation of Section 1.903(a). In its response to the NAL, Mexicana does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation or reduction in the forfeiture amount based on its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mexicana's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-46A1.txt
      • until August 28, 2007. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 22 months without Commission authorization, Miller apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Miller also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-472A1.txt
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DBK's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DBK's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, within the past year, DBK marketed two PDT models that were improperly labeled, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and Symbol WSS1060, and one PDT model that was both unauthorized
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-473A1.txt
      • locked fence or other enclosure. In its Response, Brahmin requests a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KRAE antenna tower, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Brahmin's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-474A1.txt
      • the violation was not willful and not repeated, that Metro West took immediate steps to rectify the situation as soon as it was aware of the violation, and that Metro West has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-481A1.txt
      • captioned application of the School District of Haverford Township (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Class D noncommercial educational Station WHHS(FM), Havertown, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-486A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 83689 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420030 FRN: 0006206866 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 3, 2008 Released: March 4, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Beartooth Communications Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KBBJ(TV), Havre, Montana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-487A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 84794 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420031 FRN: 0006206866 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 10, 2008 Released: March 12, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Beartooth Communications Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KBAO(TV), Lewistown, Montana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-488A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 5290 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420032 FRN: 0006206866 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 10, 2008 Released: March 12, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Beartooth Communications Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KTVH(TV), Helena, Montana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to publicize the existence and location of its Children's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-489A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 56171 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420029 FRN: 0005093430 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 3, 2008 Released: March 4, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Richard D. Tatham (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station K36DU, Lake Havasu City, Arizona (the ``Station''), apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539(a) of the Rules, by failing to file the Station's license renewal application in a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-493A1.txt
      • its enforcement function and evaluate whether Hauppauge violated Commission rules. There is no question that Hauppauge received the LOIs. To date, however, Hauppauge has failed to provide full and complete responses. Hauppauge's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-494A1.txt
      • WGYV(AM), Greenville, Alabama (the ``Station''); and (2) the Informal Objection (the ``Objection'') to the application filed on June 23, 2004, by Great Eastern Media Broadcasters, LLC (``GEMB''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-495A1.txt
      • to provide the public with timely, pertinent, information throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-497A1.txt
      • as a separate violation and Pembrook therefore requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced by $3,000. Second, Pembrook requests that the overall fine be reduced by no less than $2,000 to reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pembrook's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-498A1.txt
      • for operating radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 439.850 MHz and 147.560 MHz without a license. In its response to the NAL, Mondgock does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mondgock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-505A1.txt
      • Forfeiture to Hispanic in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Hispanic submitted a response the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Hispanic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-513A1.txt
      • Federal Communications Commission, to K1CRA Radio Store (October 18, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. �� 22.377, 25.129, 74.851, 80.203, 87.147, 90.203, and 95.603. Letter from Craig R. Andersen, Owner, K1CRA,. to Susan M. Stickley, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 21, 2007). 47. U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-513 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-513 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-516A1.txt
      • tower's registered owner. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL issued to Pinnacle must be cancelled and a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $3,000 is being issued on this date to Holmes. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Pinnacle Towers LLC IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Pinnacle Towers LLC at its address of record and to counsel for Pinnacle Towers LLC at his address of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-51A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 25559 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420022 FRN: 0005762778 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 15, 2008 Released: January 18, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KVOA Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KRIS-TV, Corpus Christi, Texas (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-521A1.txt
      • Moreover, even if Campbell had provided such evidence, the mere filing of an application would not have provided Campbell any authority to operate a radio station. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Stone Campbell, a/k/a Monroe Campbell, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-524A1.txt
      • III. DISCUSSION WMGO does not dispute the merits of our apparent finding in the NAL that it violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules and we therefore affirm that holding. Nevertheless, WMGO contends that we should cancel or reduce the forfeiture. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-525A1.txt
      • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Telefyne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of three informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-526A1.txt
      • rule. Forfeiture Amount The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. GNCW's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of these two informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each complaint, for a total
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.txt
      • for aeronautical use subject to certain conditions. See e.g., File No. 0003100761 (granted November 4, 2003). LOI response at 1. Id. GMS indicated that it subsequently learned that the municipality is not using the system because it was not able to obtain a license to operate in the 4.9 GHz band. Id See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 x y � � $ = 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-52A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 33756 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420023 FRN: 0003757119 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 15, 2008 Released: January 18, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KCTZ Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KBZK(TV), Bozeman, Montana (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-534A1.txt
      • before it the captioned application of the Long Pond Baptist Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WTBH(FM), Chiefland, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-535A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-53A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Alliance Capital Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-541A1.txt
      • his brother-in-law's friends about the radio station equipment and the antenna on the roof, but he was not able to obtain any information from them. Watkins does not address in response his refusal to allow the agents to inspect the equipment. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Watkins's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-548A1.txt
      • forfeiture of $50,000 against COI for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting COI's Worksheets. We also find by a preponderance of the evidence that COI has willfully and repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents, and support its response with the required affidavit or declaration. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its LOI response would be timely submitted. However,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.txt
      • Response, Greene Declaration at paras. 13-14; Irizarry Declaration at paras. 15-18. 47 U.S.C. � 301; 47 C.F.R. � 1.903(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.949(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.955(a)(1). See, e.g., Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002) (licensee is responsible for compliance with all Commission rules). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(3). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 NON-PUBLIC/FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY - ! � � � �@��� T � \ � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-555A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-55A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SOS Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that SOS Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-562A1.txt
      • cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On January 9, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received IBC's petition for reconsideration on February 7, 2008, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining IBC's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-563A1.txt
      • $13,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 22, 2007, by Communications Relay Corporation, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Communications Relay Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-56A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-583A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 24915 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420035 FRN: 0002746022 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 31, 2008 Released: April 1, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Gray Television Licensee, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WYMT-TV, Hazard, Kentucky (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-584A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 71428 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420034 FRN: 0009562265 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2008 Released: March 27, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WCIU-TV Limited Partnership (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WCIU-TV, Chicago, Illinois (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-585A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 73310 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420033 FRN: 0003797305 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 26, 2008 Released: March 27, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Nashville License Holdings, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WNAB(TV), Nashville, Tennessee (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) and 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-596A1.txt
      • captioned application of Southern Rhode Island Public Radio Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WKIV(FM), Westerly, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.txt
      • a response on September 17, 2007 (``Response''). In its Response, CB Shop argues that Galaxy Model DX99V does not require certification by the Commission because it is not a CB transceiver. Consequently, CB Shop argues the forfeiture should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-598A1.txt
      • February 8, 2008, and March 12, 2008. In its Response, Carlsbad Radio argues that it made efforts immediately after the Denver Office's inspection to amend the WGW926 license, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-599A1.txt
      • 13, 2008. In its Response, Bravo Mic argues that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, prior to the Denver Office's inspection. Bravo Mic also argues that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-603A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-605A1.txt
      • rectify the problem; the tower involved was one of a three tower array; the violation was not willful; Threshold knew about the problem prior to involvement by the Commission; and Threshold has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-606A1.txt
      • a license on 95.9 MHz. Simon filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on July 19, 2007, and supplemented his response on March 7, 2008. In his Response, Simon states that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-610A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-625A1.txt
      • file, including quarterly issues/programs lists. We determine that DBC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules based on its admission that issues/programs lists were purged and that these lists could not be recreated. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining DBC's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-669A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-670A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Copier Search International, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Copier Search International, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-671A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that DD&S Companies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that DD&S Companies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-732A1.txt
      • 2007 (``Response''). In its Response, NSTN argues that the NAL should be cancelled because NSTN did not operate from an incorrect control point as the station has no control points, and the address listed was merely an out-of-date contact address. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining NSTN's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-741A1.txt
      • accounts, no shareholders, no officers, and no address. BEC also states that it requested dissolution from Texas State Comptroller on August 17, 2007. As part of its Petition, BEC includes its filings with the Texas State Comptroller. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the $8,000 forfeiture is warranted. Nevertheless, we find that it is appropriate to admonish BEC for its willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-742A1.txt
      • does not deny the inoperability of the EAS equipment, but requests that the forfeiture be reduced or cancelled based on its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, and its ability to pay the forfeiture because of its financial situation. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-743A1.txt
      • the Honolulu Office to resolve the issue. After working with the Honolulu Office for four days in October, 2007, JMK filed its Supplemental Response, which reiterated the arguments of its Response, but supplied new, and conflicting, engineering data and information. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining JMK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.txt
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 * 9 < G H I V Z b g h k p z ~  � ... � � � � .� � � � � � h�j h�j h�j � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...���
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-756A1.txt
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. Traffic Control submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Traffic Control's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.txt
      • toll-free numbers. See Defendant's Response to Complainant's Interrogatory No. 3. Complaint at 14. Response at 5. Complaint at 15. Complaint at Ex. K; Answer at Ex. II. Erdman Technologies Corp. v. US Sprint Communications Company, 11 FCC Rcd 6339, 6342 (May 29, 1996). Answer at 10. Response at 9. Complaint at 15. 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, � 29 (1998). Complaint at 15. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.722(d), (h). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-783A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 25453 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420036 FRN: 0003482189 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 7, 2008 Released: April 8, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that CBS Broadcasting Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KYW-TV, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i)-(iii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-788A1.txt
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of James Rouse (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WTOW(AM), Washington, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-789A1.txt
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of The Minority Voice, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WOOW(AM), Greenville, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-792A1.txt
      • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Maignan submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Maignan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-817A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Meridian Marketing Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-818A1.txt
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send two unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-836A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 9971 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420038 FRN: 0006770051 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 11, 2008 Released: April 16, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WUXP Licensee, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WUXP-TV, Nashville, Tennessee (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-837A1.txt
      • comply with the children's television commercial limits. Consequently, the Licensee asserted that any forfeiture should be issued against WUXP-TV, and not WZTV(TV). Based on our review of the Licensee's Response to the NAL, we cancel the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) proposed in the September 28, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to WZTV Licensee, LLC IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent, by First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the Licensee
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-838A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 51597 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420037 FRN: 0002050185 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 11, 2008 Released: April 16, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Media General Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WTVQ-TV, Lexington, Kentucky (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(5), (e)(11)(i) and 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-869A1.txt
      • that it has been operating on one of the EBS channels without authority since 1994 and on two of the EBS channels without authority since 2001. As detailed below, we find that Dakota Central apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on three EBS channels without Commission authorization. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for unauthorized use of a frequency. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess against an entity that is neither a broadcaster nor a common carrier a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.txt
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - S T U � � T U � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-883A1.txt
      • the Assemblies of God in American Samoa (``District Council'') on June 5, 2006; and an Opposition to the Petition file by the Licensee on July 10, 2006. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350 of the Rules, by engaging in operation of the Station at an unauthorized site; and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1740 of the Rules, by leaving the Station
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-902A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 34537 NAL/Acct. No. 0841420039 FRN: 0009574518 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 18, 2008 Released: April 23, 2008 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KHQ, Incorporated (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KHQ-TV, Spokane, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the Rules, by failing to place in the Station's public inspection file all required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-904A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Alliance Capital's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-905A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Aras's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-906A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for Mario's Roofing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-907A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Tri-State's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-908A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for ESpeed's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4),and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-909A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $10,000 for NEIR's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-910A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-911A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-961A1.txt
      • of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Mr. Rackley submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Rackley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-968A1.txt
      • the forfeiture assessed on Antique Radio Collector, an ``individual'' engaged in a casual source of income, is excessive when compared to the forfeiture assessed on a business entity regularly engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Antique Radio Collector's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-970A1.txt
      • license term. Saga filed an Opposition to Informal Objection on June 10, 2004, and AHM filed a Reply to Opposition to Informal Objection on June 21, 2004. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Saga apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1304 of Title 18 of the United States Code (the ``Lottery Statute'') and Section 73.1211(a) of the Rules. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1031A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1031A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1031A1.txt
      • conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Sennheiser's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Sennheiser's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of Sennheiser's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1044A1.txt
      • imposed. The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Corr is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for operation on an unauthorized frequency. Corr concedes that it operated stations WMV851 and WPJD282 on unauthorized frequencies. We find that Corr's operation of each of these stations on an unauthorized frequency is a separate violation, subject to a separate proposed forfeiture of $4,000. We accordingly conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1058A1.txt
      • between 2003 and 2005. In response, Valley Air filed the subject Request. In its Request, Valley Air asserts that payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship, and claims that this reason warrants a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Valley Air
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1059A1.txt
      • of the proposed forfeiture would cause it financial hardship. Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1083A1.txt
      • It claims that the former licensee, RealRadio, is no longer associated with the Station, and that to impose a forfeiture would only harm innocent creditors of the bankrupt former licensee. Trustee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1091A1.txt
      • expired; (3) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules; and (4) payment of the forfeiture would severely restrict its ability to operate the Stations. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1092A1.txt
      • had expired; (3) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules; and (4) payment of the forfeiture would severely restrict its ability to operate the Stations. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1100A1.txt
      • the violation; and (3) the forfeiture amount is ``excessive.'' Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1184A1.txt
      • Wireless in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules. ERF Wireless submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining ERF Wireless' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1198A1.txt
      • Identifier TW4-906T issued to Shenzhen AEE Technology Co., Ltd., for a 2.4 GHz Wireless Camera (``Shenzhen Grant''), along with a ``LVD Report'' for Shenzhen AEE Technology Co., LTD Model ZT-906T and an ``EMC Test Report'' for Models ZT-906T and ZT-903T. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-119A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cablevision's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1208A1.txt
      • did not intentionally commit the violations and that it has made significant efforts to come into compliance with the Commission's Rules. In addition, MBHD submits a Declaration from the WYGG consulting engineer that addresses each of the findings in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining MBHD's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.txt
      • will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1222A1.txt
      • In response, Licensee filed the subject Request. In support of its Request, Licensee states that WBCE is financially insolvent and therefore unable to pay any monetary forfeiture. Licensee asserts that this reason warrants a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee claims
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.txt
      • will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that Cox is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.txt
      • will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1243A1.txt
      • inadvertent; (2) it voluntarily disclosed the violation; (3) the forfeiture amount would create a ``terrible financial burden'' on the Station; and (4) it has a history of compliance. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1247A1.txt
      • authority after September 26, 2007. By operating earth station E970411 without Commission authorization, Fox Television apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Fox Television also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the earth station. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.txt
      • failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall b e liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been i ssued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1258A1.txt
      • Commission authorization, TSA apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules and is apparently liable for a forfeiture. TSA is also apparently liable for a forfeiture for failing to file a timely renewal application for aviation support station KSC8 in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1264A1.txt
      • to receive prior authorization from the International Bureau, a proposed forfeiture of $100,000 is warranted for Teleplus's apparent willful repeated failure to obtain section 214 authority from the Commission prior to providing international telecommunications service. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and the authority delegated by section 0.111 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, Teleplus, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $100,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.txt
      • repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been issued mus t have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.txt
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Time Warner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1282A1.txt
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cobra Broadcasting Co., LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KBRA(FM), Freer, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1283A1.txt
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, and (2) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1284A1.txt
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.txt
      • repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1290A1.txt
      • that would have otherwise required dismissal of the late-filed long form application and associated imposition of a default payment, the Bureau found that Neely failed to comply with the Rules requiring timely submission of the post-auction Form 301 application. Accordingly, the Bureau issued the NAL pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, based on Neely's apparent willful failure to timely file a post-auction Form 301 application, as required by Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules. In response, Neely filed the subject Opposition. In support of his Opposition, Neely states that a cancellation of forfeiture is warranted because: (1) he did not ``fail[ ] to file a required form''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Harron is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.txt
      • repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(a)(1). }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand, five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1327A1.txt
      • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Copier Search's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Copier Search International, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1328A1.txt
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $10,000 for AZ Prime One willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1329A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Rentex's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Rentex IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.txt
      • if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1330A1.txt
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to properly file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) payment of the forfeiture would cause it financial hardship. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.txt
      • preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule.8Based on the analysis set forth below, we 447 C.F.R. � 76.1603(b). 5Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Howard Symons, Esq., Counsel for Cablevision Systems Corp. (Oct. 30, 2008) ("LOI"). 647 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(1). 747 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f). 8See, e.g.,SBC Communications, Inc.,Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-133 3 conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1366A1.txt
      • was thus a harmless mistake; and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced or cancelled to take into account its history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules. Urban Radio also suggests that the forfeiture amount inappropriately penalizes a minority-owned station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We reject
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1367A1.txt
      • for the Station. In his Letter, Reynolds states that his failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional and that it would be a financial hardship for him to pay the forfeiture. Therefore, he argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Reynolds does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1386A1.txt
      • Bear Creek personnel immediately applied for a license once the FCC agents advised them that a license was required. Third, Bear Creek submits that the absence of prior FCC violations warrants cancellation of the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1390A1.txt
      • in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Midland's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Midland's's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Midland apparently marketed two distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT950 (designated by Midland as models GXT900VP4, GXT900VP4K and GXT950VP4) and the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT850Z (designated by Midland as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1394A1.txt
      • of its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to file properly the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-140A1.txt
      • the fact that, by its admission, twelve issues/programs lists were missing from the Station's public inspection file. In response, Licensee filed the subject Request, asserting that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1421A1.txt
      • evidence before us, we find that the Station apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Taking this standard into account, and based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1428A1.txt
      • conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Iftron's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Iftron's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of Iftron's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess entities such as Iftron a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-142A1.txt
      • stations; and (2) the forfeiture amount assessed against it is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious than Licensee's violation. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1437A1.txt
      • Cayuga also urges the Commission to cancel or substantially reduce the NAL's proposed forfeiture amount asserting that it is unable to pay that amount and that the amount should reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1481A1.txt
      • I.D. No. 72982 Facility I.D. No. 71418 Facility I.D. No. 40408 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: June 29, 2009 Released: June 29, 2009 By the Acting Chief, Media Bureau I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Cox Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Florida Stations WFLC(FM), Miami; WHQT(FM), Coral Gables; and WEDR(FM) and WHDR(FM), Miami (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1), 73.2080(c)(1)(i) and 73.2080(c)(3) of the Rules by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') recruitment and self-assessment requirements. Based upon
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1482A1.txt
      • I.D. No. 40680 Facility I.D. No. 67188 Facility I.D. No. 56483 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: June 29, 2009 Released: June 29, 2009 By the Acting Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Entravision Holdings, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations KFRQ(FM), Harlingen, Texas; KNVO-FM, Port Isabel, Texas; KVLY(FM), Edinburg, Texas; and KKPS(FM), Brownsville, Texas (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1), 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3), and 73.2080(c)(6) of the Rules by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') recruitment, self-assessment,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1483A1.txt
      • I.D. No. 27021 Facility I.D. No. 87565 Facility I.D. No. 33713 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: June 29, 2009 Released: June 29, 2009 By the Acting Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that CMP Houston-KC, LLC (``CMP Houston''), licensee of Stations KCMO(AM), Kansas City, Missouri, KCMO-FM, Shawnee, Missouri, KCFX(FM), Harrisonville, Missouri, KCJK(FM), Garden City, Missouri, and CMP KC Licensing, LLC (``CMP KC''), licensee of Station KMJK(FM), Lexington, Missouri (KCMO(AM), KCMO-FM, KCFX(FM), KCJK(FM) and KMJK(FM), collectively, the ``Stations'' and CMP Houston and CMP KC, collectively,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1485A1.txt
      • See 47 C.F.R. �15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J. Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1485 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1485 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-148A1.txt
      • such grants, and limit its ability to provide public service programming. Licensee further asserts that the Station has taken remedial steps to ensure future compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1505A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1511A1.txt
      • also urges the Commission to cancel or substantially reduce the NAL's proposed forfeiture amount asserting that it is unable to pay that amount and that the forfeiture amount should reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1513A1.txt
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Inter Tech's conduct has continued since at least February 2008, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Inter Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each violation involving the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Further, we have found that each instance of marketing of an unauthorized model constitutes a separate and continuing violation. Consistent with recent precedent, we propose a total forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1514A1.txt
      • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Amerilist's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1517A1.txt
      • Wesleyan states that: (1) its failure to properly file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules. Wesleyan asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Wesleyan does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1518A1.txt
      • of its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to file properly the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1519A1.txt
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1530A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for DD&S's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that DD&S Companies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1531A1.txt
      • the information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for So Clean's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that So Clean, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1535A1.txt
      • conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that LawMate's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to LawMate's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of LawMate's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1538A1.txt
      • that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of their demonstrated inability to pay. They also included a photograph of the closed, locked gate to the fence and reported that the gate to the fence is now locked and secure. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Ortega and Juarez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1539A1.txt
      • 136.1 MHz. In its Response, Playa argues that a forfeiture is not warranted in this case because it responded to the San Diego Office and addressed the issue ``promptly and fully,'' and that the violation was not willful or repeated. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Playa's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1540A1.txt
      • earth station without Commission authorization. In its Response, Starfish argues that it operated in good faith and relied on outside parties concerning the licensing process, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of Starfish's demonstrated inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Starfish's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1552A1.txt
      • willful violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules and willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. Jackson submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Jackson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1566A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Universal Roofing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Universal Roofing d/b/a Universal Roofing & General Contracting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1568A1.txt
      • was minor in nature, that it was immediately corrected, that it was not repeated, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on Greeley's history of compliance with the Rules, as well as it inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Greeley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1569A1.txt
      • Licensee had apparently violated the pertinent statute and Commission rules, and proposing a monetary forfeiture of $20,000. On March 14, 2009, PRC responded to the NAL, claiming inability to pay and requesting that the proposed forfeiture be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1592A1.txt
      • record, we find that @Communications did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1593A1.txt
      • record, we find that PriorityOne did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1596A1.txt
      • to maintain issues/programs lists. Chladek therefore requests a waiver of the forfeiture in light of the station's unique public service programming and the fact that the station is now in compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1597A1.txt
      • units and a mobile relay station on the unauthorized frequencies 469.4 MHz and 464.4 MHz respectively. Despite evidence that Sims received the NAL, Sims has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Sims Metal East, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1614A1.txt
      • record, we find that Naperville did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1615A1.txt
      • record, we find that Sweetser did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1618A1.txt
      • we find that TCO Network did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1619A1.txt
      • record, we find that Hinton did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1620A1.txt
      • that The Telephone Company, Inc. did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1621A1.txt
      • record, we find that Momentum did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 NAL for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1626A1.txt
      • or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1626 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1626 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ; < � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1630A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Coastal Steel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1631A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Tri-State's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the 2008 NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.txt
      • the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The GPS-JM2 GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 U V 8 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1704A1.txt
      • its Request, Bowie states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Bowie asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Bowie does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1712A1.txt
      • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for First Alliance's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that First Alliance Security IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1733A1.txt
      • pertinent statute and Commission Rules, and proposing a monetary forfeiture of $5,000. On February 13, 2009, Jones responded to the NAL, alleging that the Bureau's ruling is erroneous and that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled or reduced. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1740A1.txt
      • \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\super 1}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ab\af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 In}{\rtlch\fcs1 \ab\af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs22 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs22 Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2 "Rules"),}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2\super 2}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2 by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2\super 3}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2 we find }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1741A1.txt
      • in August of 2002. The station was out of business for several months. Needless to say, the station was unable to produce any income and there was some confusion during that time as to whether the station would ever be reestablished.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Imani does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-174A1.txt
      • Orleans Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Millworks. Millworks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Southern Classic Millworks, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1751A1.txt
      • presented a reasonable showing that neither Venali nor customers using Venali services in fact transmitted the faxes involved in the complaints or NAL. We therefore conclude that the NAL issued to Venali should be cancelled. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's Rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $18,000 issued to Venali, Inc. in the September 28, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Venali, Inc., at its address
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1753A1.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Severino. Mr. Severino has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Radhames Severino IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Severino will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1756A1.txt
      • when Journal Broadcast filed its requests for STAs. Thus, it appears that Journal Broadcast violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for each station, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its stations without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-175A1.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to Mr. Konarz. Mr. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for violations of Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-176A1.txt
      • Juan Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $13,000 to PBS. PBS has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Perry Broadcasting Systems IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violations of Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1772A1.txt
      • the restricted frequency bands. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1772 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1772 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' T  � S T � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1785A1.txt
      • of the Commission's Rules. Because K43AG did not exceed authorized parameters with its reduced facilities during that time, and because Iglesia took prompt corrective action when it learned of such unauthorized operation, we find that admonishment of the licensee is appropriate for the station's brief operation at variance. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Iglesia's conduct in this regard was both ``willful'' and ``repeated'' within the meaning of Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1802A1.txt
      • question of fact has not been raised with respect to Tuck's qualifications to remain a Commission licensee. We believe, however, that Tuck should be sanctioned for its false certifications, and that monetary forfeitures should be imposed for the two apparent violations of Section 73.1015 of the Commission's Rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Tuck's conduct in this regard was both ``willful'' and ``repeated'' within the meaning of Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1823A1.txt
      • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1823 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1823 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 I J -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.txt
      • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 J -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1830A1.txt
      • expiration date of the Station's license, rather than merely before the expiration date. Towle states that this reason, together with his financial hardship and the Station's history of rebroadcasting its primary station to the area, warrants cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Towle does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1832A1.txt
      • Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. In its NAL Response, Ministerio does not dispute the Bureau's NAL finding that the two announcements at issue violated the Commission's underwriting rules and so we adopt the NAL's apparent conclusion concerning those announcements. Instead, Ministerio focuses on the proposed forfeiture amount, which was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-183A1.txt
      • 1990 letter decision in which an admonishment was issued by the Mass Media Bureau concerning a contest rule violation in Kevin Cooney, Entercom argues that, at most, the circumstances of this case might merit an admonishment, but not a forfeiture. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-184A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Medical Services is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1884A1.txt
      • SIM card sales. Accordingly, we find that Cellular Abroad did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Cellular Abroad,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1885A1.txt
      • was due. Accordingly, we find that Daytona Beach did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to City of Daytona Beach in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1886A1.txt
      • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Nebraska Supercomm did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Nebraska
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1888A1.txt
      • a telecommunications carrier. Accordingly, we find that Pilgrim did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1889A1.txt
      • 2007 calendar year. Accordingly, we find that Visionary did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1891A1.txt
      • 2007 was not due. Accordingly, we find that Zicore did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Zicore,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-189A1.txt
      • KDKA(AM) ) FRN No. 0009225210 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 5, 2009 Released: February 5, 2009 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that CBS Radio East Inc. (``CBS'' or the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KDKA(AM), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (``Station KDKA'' or the ``Station''), broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof, and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-190A1.txt
      • its Request, Saga argues that: (1) the violations were not willful or repeated; (2) it is contrary to the public interest to assess a forfeiture for voluntary, self-reported violations; and (3) Commission precedent in similar circumstances is to admonish the licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Saga does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-191A1.txt
      • its Request, Saga argues that: (1) the violations were not willful or repeated; (2) it is contrary to the public interest to assess a forfeiture for voluntary, self-reported violations; and (3) Commission precedent in similar circumstances is to admonish the licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Saga does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1926A1.txt
      • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Isan did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Isan,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1928A1.txt
      • calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1929A1.txt
      • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Orange did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-192A1.txt
      • captioned application of the American Institute for Jewish Education (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WMDI-LP, Lakewood, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1930A1.txt
      • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Freedom did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1931A1.txt
      • calendar year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1932A1.txt
      • not due. Accordingly, we find that Worldwide Marketing did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1958A1.txt
      • facsimile number of record used for the November 4, 2008 LOI. The certified mail return receipt confirms delivery of the Follow-Up LOI on March 9, 2009. The facsimile transmittal receipt confirms satisfactory transmission of the Follow-Up LOI on March 4, 2009. To date, Opp Ed has not responded to the Follow-Up LOI. DISCUSSION Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1968A1.txt
      • offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Eric Hoppe, Progressive Concepts (May 13, 2008). Letter from Eric Hoppe, Progressive Concepts, to Peter Waltonen, Esq, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (July 2, 2008). Id. at 2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1968 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1968 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 _ ` 5 6 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1973A1.txt
      • Request, Christian Radio states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Christian Radio asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Christian Radio
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1974A1.txt
      • filed his Petition requesting cancellation of the forfeiture on March 9, 2007. In support of his Petition, Licensee states that he is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, and asserts that this reason warrants a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1975A1.txt
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1980A1.txt
      • by another carrier. Accordingly, we find that Clarks did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1989A1.txt
      • to maintain a main studio for WFBZ consistent with the Rules. In its response, Sparta-Tomah does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests that we cancel the forfeiture in light of its remedial efforts and history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Sparta-Tomah's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-198A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Alliance Capital willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1990A1.txt
      • operating at excessive power and therefore warrants a lower forfeiture amount; and requests a reduction in the overall forfeiture amount based on its inability to pay and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1991A1.txt
      • the public inspection file. In its response to the NAL, Real Life requests a cancellation or reduction based on its remedial efforts, its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, its history of overall compliance, and its inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Real Life's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1996A1.txt
      • 2003 filing deadline, but did so on paper, not electronically. MVB states that because it was unaware of the electronic filing requirement, the violation was not willful. Similarly, MVB states that it did not fail to file the "required form," but merely filed it ``untimely.'' MVB also asserts that the NAL was not issued within the time specified in Section 1.80(c) of the Rules. Specifically, MVB states that the violation occurred as of December 1, 2003, the date the application was required to be filed, and that the December 6, 2006, NAL was not issued within one year of the violation or "prior to the date of commencement of the current license term. . .", as provided by Section 1.80(c). For
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-199A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for American Locators willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Locators, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-200A1.txt
      • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Guardian Steel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2053A1.txt
      • caused ``solely by operator error'' and ``did not constitute a willful or repeated violation'' of the Rules. Additionally, the Licensee asserts that it has provided additional EAS training for each of the station operators to ensure that the events of October 19, 2008, are not repeated. dISCUSSION Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2065A1.txt
      • renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause financial hardship because WHEI(FM) has limited funding and Licensee is in the process of upgrading the equipment necessary to operate the station and its commonly owned television station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2066A1.txt
      • file renewal applications for the Stations. In its Statement, Morgan County Broadcasting states that it has an overall history of compliance with the Rules and is entitled to a reduction of the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We reject
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2067A1.txt
      • application was unintentional and that it would be a financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture. It also argues that the staff should consider Columbia City's status as a non-profit governmental entity. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, the record of compliance, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Columbia City does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2069A1.txt
      • obligations, and that this was demonstrated by its ultimate award of all promised prizes including bonus items to compensate the complainant for his trouble. Saga urges that the Commission cancel or substantially reduce the proposed $4,000 forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2077A1.txt
      • timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2078A1.txt
      • the Station. In response, Licensee filed the subject Request. In support of its Request, Licensee states that its failure to properly file the renewal application was inadvertent, and asserts that this reason warrants a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2079A1.txt
      • based on information provided by WorldNet in its response to the NAL, including sworn declarations from two WorldNet employees, we find that the record is insufficient to support a finding of a willful violation. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL should be cancelled. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the April 3, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order issued to WorldNet, L.L.C. IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Ms. Debra R. Schmidt, Director of Telephony Services, WorldNet, L.L.C., 1 Riverfront Plaza, Suite
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-207A1.txt
      • notification provisions play in protecting the integrity of its auctions. On balance, and in light of our legal precedent, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $75,000 against Cascade is appropriate in this instance. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Cascade Access, L.L.C., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) for its willful violation of Sections 1.2105(c)(1) and (c)(6) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2105(c)(1) and (c)(6). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2101A1.txt
      • failed to submit a response to the NAL. On February 4, 2009, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $3,000 forfeiture. On February 24, 2009, Millworks filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Millworks' petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2153A1.txt
      • states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional and that it would be a financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. TEA-VISZ does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2154A1.txt
      • authorization. In the Letter, BSOA states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional and was caused by a ``significant'' personnel turnover at the time the renewal filing was due. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. BSOA does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2163A1.txt
      • Licensee advances several arguments why the $14,000 forfeiture amount proposed in this case was excessive, including, among others, that it is inconsistent with more recent forfeitures assessed against translators. It asserts that these reasons warrant a reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-216A1.txt
      • the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to this case, we conclude that Lancaster is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for apparently violating the Commission's underwriting rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Lancaster Educational Broadcasting Foundation, licensee of noncommercial educational Station WFCO(FM), Lancaster, Ohio, is hereby NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, during the period
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2176A1.txt
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Linfield College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KSLC(FM), McMinnville, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KSLC(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2177A1.txt
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Auburn Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSFW(AM), Seneca Falls, New York (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WSFW(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2178A1.txt
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Auburn Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WAUB(AM), Auburn, New York (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WAUB(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2179A1.txt
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lake Country Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WNYR-FM, Waterloo, New York (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WNYR-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2197A1.txt
      • Meadowland explains that the delay in its filing was inadvertent, occasioned by the severe health problems and hospitalization of its chief engineer and liaison, David Morris. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Meadowland does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2202A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file a required form. The guidelines also specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2213A1.txt
      • thousand dollars ($12,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.51(b) of the Rules. Foundation, Inc. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Foundation Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2227A1.txt
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Elmira College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WECW(FM), Elmira, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2228A1.txt
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lusk TV Club (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K276AW, Lusk, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2229A1.txt
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Universal Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KQLO(AM), Sun Valley, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2230A1.txt
      • has before it the captioned application of Kath Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K244AR, Pine Bluffs, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2231A1.txt
      • has before it the captioned application of Corning Community College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WCEB(FM), Corning, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2232A1.txt
      • it the captioned application (the ``Application'') of North Custer Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K232CL, Challis, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2233A1.txt
      • it the captioned application of Connecticut River Educational Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WWBW-LP, Higganum, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2239A1.txt
      • in Brooklyn, New York in violation of Section 301 of the Act. In their response, Clerveau and Edwards deny having a radio station in their apartment and claim that the radio station is operated from a building across the street. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Clerveau's and Edwards' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2303A1.txt
      • with the FCC ID and thus did not comply with Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. Accordingly, we find that Richfield apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing equipment that was not labeled in accordance with Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules provide that any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any term or condition of a Commission license, permit, certificate or other authorization or any provision of the Act, or Commission rule, regulation, or order, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2304A1.txt
      • file the renewal applications because he was hospitalized shortly before the application filing deadline, and (2) has a history of compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2305A1.txt
      • structure number 1005854, a violation of section 17.57. Ely filed a response (``Response'') on December 1, 2008, arguing that it is not the owner of antenna structure 1005854, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-233A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Secured Finance willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-234A1.txt
      • before us, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules when the Station's ``KOST Rewards Program's `Les Miserables' Contest'' broadcast information about a Contest it conducted but failed to fully disclose the material terms of that Contest or to conduct the Contest substantially as advertised. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each violation of Section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(c)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2365A1.txt
      • Forfeiture to Mr. Grover in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Grover submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Grover's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-236A1.txt
      • JBU's offense. In its Amendment, JBU attributed the violation to the fact that ``the station is a student-staffed educational radio station [and] during the license period, several different faculty members and students were responsible for maintaining the station's local public file. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. JBU's decision
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2374A1.txt
      • to the issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the Commission from assessing whether Uniden's conduct prior to that time period apparently violated the provisions of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Uniden apparently marketed three distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT018 (designated by Uniden as models GMR1588-2CK and GMR1595-2CK); the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT017 (designated by Uniden as model GMR1558-2CK);and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2375A1.txt
      • the Act, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the base amount to $15,000 is justified for Global NAPs' apparent repeated and willful failure to provide a timely and complete response to the LOI. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Global NAPs California, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $80,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2380A1.txt
      • to timely file the renewal applications was unintentional, and (2) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. Calvary asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Calvary does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2382A1.txt
      • states that his violation of Sections 73.3539 of the Rules and 301 of the Act was not intentional, and that he is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2383A1.txt
      • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that R.F. Technologies' conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to R.F. Technologies' apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation. Based on the record before us, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2390A1.txt
      • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Frank submitted responses to the NAL denying that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and requesting that the matter be dropped. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Frank's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2395A1.txt
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2395 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2395 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2404A1.txt
      • proposed forfeiture amounts. On October 3, 2009, investigation by agents from the Denver Office revealed that Hodson continued to operate KHOD(FM) in Raton, New Mexico, at variance with the terms of its construction permit and Section 73.1620 of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2426A1.txt
      • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2426 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2426 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2439A1.txt
      • service. Licensee states that these are ``first-time'' violations and that he does not have the ability to pay. Licensee also states that all of the statutory mitigating factors warranting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture are applicable in this case. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2441A1.txt
      • relied on coordinates given to it by the owner of the building in which it was located, that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2442A1.txt
      • that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, that it promptly erected the temporary fence urged by the agent, that the stations gross revenues are marginal, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Evan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2447A1.txt
      • Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See FCC IDs XQGQRF600-RE and XQGQRF600-TR (granted: September 27, 2009; grantee: QOMO HiteVision LLC.). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA-09-2447 Federal Communications Commission DA-09-2447 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) � � � � � &`#$ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2455A1.txt
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Southern Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WENA(AM), Yauco, Puerto Rico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2469A1.txt
      • on January 12, 2009 (the ``Petition to Deny''). Finally, we have before us an application for minor modification of the facilities of Station WOLL(FM) (the ``Modification Application''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, for the reasons stated below, we: (1) deny the informal objection and grant the Wellington Application; (2) grant the Petition for Reconsideration directed to the Juno Beach Application to the extent necessary to consider the arguments raised against
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2473A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-24A1.txt
      • January 25, 2007, but prior to the issuance of the NAL, the Commission approved, and Hensley consummated on June 15, 2007, a transfer of control from Carl C. Kuehn and the Estate of M. Dean Lebo to Joseph L. Green. II. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Hensley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2506A1.txt
      • are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The listed video transmitters intentionally transmit radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See n. 11 supra and accompanying text. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2506 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2506 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 M N � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2507A1.txt
      • the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Apple is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-251A1.txt
      • of the Station; and (2) the forfeiture amount assessed against it is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to Citadel's violations. Citadel asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Citadel's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2520A1.txt
      • is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Corning submits financial statements for calendar years 2005-2008, prepared by an independent auditor, a firm of certified public accountants. Corning asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Corning does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2521A1.txt
      • the Station operates essentially as an extracurricular activity and it has a ``very minimal budget.'' Licensee also states that it has operated in the public interest for nearly 30 years and it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2522A1.txt
      • states that it has a history of compliance with the Rules, and that the forfeiture of $10,000 per station is vastly disproportionate to those assessed to small religious broadcasters for more serious violations, citing Faith Christian Music Broadcast Ministries, Inc. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. First, Licensee
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-252A1.txt
      • (``Petition''). In its Petition, the Licensee seeks reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture in light of its record of compliance, the nature of the violation, and the corrective steps taken to insure its future compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-253A1.txt
      • that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Power 7's conduct has continued over a period that began on March 29, 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Power 7's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. At the time of Power 7's apparent violations, we were authorized under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act to assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, a broadcast
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2540A1.txt
      • from the cases cited in the NAL; (2) the Commission staff failed to explain the imposition of a higher forfeiture than was issued in recent cases citing similar rule violations, and (3) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2545A1.txt
      • consultants to guide it through regulatory and other legal issues. XLNT Idea states that the proposed forfeiture is a heavy burden. To substantiate these claims, XLNT Idea submits federal tax returns for 2006, 2007, and a financial statement for 2008. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. XLNT Idea,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2546A1.txt
      • (1) inadvertent because it thought it had been properly filed, and (2) may have been the result of technical difficulties in the Commission's electronic filing system, known as CDBS. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-255A1.txt
      • us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Cumulus has previously been found to violate Section 73.1206. Having considered the record in this case and the statutory factors, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2568A1.txt
      • to the NAL on January 22, 2009. In its Response, Westin argues that the proposed forfeiture amount should be reduced because of it good faith efforts to comply with the Rules and its history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9 The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-256A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Big Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Big Telephone, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2574A1.txt
      • filed a response (``Response'') to the NAL on January 16, 2009. In its Response, Nevada Yellow Cab argues that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2575A1.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Anthony F. Davis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Davis will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-257A1.txt
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ben Lomand Rural apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-258A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ben Lomand apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ben Lomand Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2592A1.txt
      • it the captioned application of Life At Its Best, Inc. (the "Licensee") for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KLBG-LP, Glide, Oregon (the "Station"). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules"), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station (the ``Application''), and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-259A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bellvoz apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bellvoz Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-260A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bee Line apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bee Line Cable IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-261A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Atlantic apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.txt
      • frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' The video transmitters listed in your response intentionally transmit radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5U.S.C � 552(a)(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2627A1.txt
      • 2008, Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alaska Educational Radio System, Inc. must either resume operations from its authorized Kasilof site or file an appropriate request for silent authority within thirty days of the release date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Alaska Educational Radio System, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 73.1350 of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2644A1.txt
      • 2005, until the filing of its STA request on January 30, 2009, Nevada Sun Peak apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Nevada Sun Peak also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQE205. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-264A1.txt
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find American Fiber apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-265A1.txt
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Action Communications, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Action Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-267A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find 800 Response apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 800 Response Information Services LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-269A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Buckeye apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-270A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Cherokee apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Cherokee Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-271A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find China Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, China Telecom (Americas) Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-276A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Communications Venture apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-277A1.txt
      • an annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Aquis apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-278A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Consolidated Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Consolidated Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-280A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clear World apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clear World Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-282A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find D.G.A. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-290A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Isan apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Isan IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-293A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Tennessee apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-294A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Kitchen Productions apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-296A1.txt
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find KanOkla Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-297A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Latino Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Latino Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-298A1.txt
      • by an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Threshold apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Threshold Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-299A1.txt
      • not in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Leflore apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Leflore Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-302A1.txt
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Legacy Long Distance apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-303A1.txt
      • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find M & L Enterprises apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-305A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Liberty apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-306A1.txt
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Call One apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-308A1.txt
      • an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find McClure Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, McClure Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-309A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find VDL apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, VDL, Inc., d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-310A1.txt
      • has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-312A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Volunteer apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Volunteer First Services, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-315A1.txt
      • not in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Commnet apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Commnet Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-316A1.txt
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Momentum Telecom, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Momentum Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-317A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Worldwide Marketing apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-318A1.txt
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Angel Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-321A1.txt
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Data Radio Management apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Data Radio Management Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-322A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find MacIntyre apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Scott C. MacIntyre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-323A1.txt
      • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Edward Adams Associates apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Edward Adams Associates, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-324A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Zicore apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Zicore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-327A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SI2Way apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, SI2Way, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-328A1.txt
      • not in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Frank apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Wayne Frank IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-331A1.txt
      • compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hopper apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, James T. Hopper IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-332A1.txt
      • compliance certificate stating his personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Sherman apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Arthur N. Sherman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-333A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telebeeper apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-334A1.txt
      • annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clifford Bade apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clifford Bade IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-335A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find National Brands apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-337A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Netcarrier apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Netcarrier Telecom, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-338A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Network Innovations apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Network Innovations, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-340A1.txt
      • any actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Nunn apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Nunn Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-341A1.txt
      • an annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find O.R. Knutson apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, O.R. Knutson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-342A1.txt
      • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find One Touch apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, One Touch India LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-344A1.txt
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Phillips County apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-347A1.txt
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Prime Time Ventures apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Prime Time Ventures, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-348A1.txt
      • any actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-349A1.txt
      • by an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find ProCom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ProCom LMR, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-350A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Protek apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Protek Leasing Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-352A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find DAR apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DAR Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-357A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-358A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-359A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-360A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Securetel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Securetel Network Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-362A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Shreveport apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-364A1.txt
      • by an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Desktop apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Desktop Media, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-367A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Dixville Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Dixville Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-370A1.txt
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find E & F Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E & F Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-371A1.txt
      • the company with personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Eastern Colorado apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-372A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find EGIX apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, EGIX, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-373A1.txt
      • any actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SCTelcom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, South Central Wireless, Inc. dba SCTelcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-374A1.txt
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Specialized Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-378A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find BKT apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, BKT Telecom Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-380A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find First Mile apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-382A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Gabriel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Gabriel Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-383A1.txt
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find T2 Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, T2 Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-384A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ganoco apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ganoco, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-385A1.txt
      • concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telchin apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Telchin Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-386A1.txt
      • compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find General Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, General Mobile Radio IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-389A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find GOES Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, GOES Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-391A1.txt
      • rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4, 000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-394A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Highland apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Highland Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-401A1.txt
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find TeleSpan apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-403A1.txt
      • objections filed against the Application by Dee Schademann on September 21, 2005 (the ``Schademann Objection''), and by Joshua C. Powers on September 26, 2005 (the ``Powers Objection''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we deny the Schademann
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-404A1.txt
      • of its request, it submits copies of its 2001, 2002 and 2003 Federal tax returns. The returns show: (a) for 2001, a loss of $ 5,332 on gross receipts of $11,879, (b) for 2002, an income of $1,622 on gross receipts of $ 18,786, and (c) for 2003, a loss of $ 7,009 on gross receipts of $15,343. Discussion Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules states that ``in determining the amount of forfeiture penalty, the Commission . . . will take into account . . . ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' In general, the Commission looks to gross revenues as the principal factor in determining inability to pay. A station's lack of profitability over a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.txt
      • frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-421A1.txt
      • telephone solicitation to the one consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Triple Take Lawn Care, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Triple Take Lawn Care, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-426A1.txt
      • by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-433A1.txt
      • the needs and interests of their local communities. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation.'' Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules state that persons who willfully or repeatedly fail to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules are liable for forfeiture penalties. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, if any, in the instant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-437A1.txt
      • � 15.3(o). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). 47 C.F.R. � 15.239(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.239(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-437 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-437 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & ' � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-438A1.txt
      • its Response, Princess K Fishing Corporation argues it did not willfully or repeatedly violate Section 80.89(a) of the Rules, that it was not responsible for the acts of its employee, and that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-478A1.txt
      • that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to the public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture and the imposition of an admonishment. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-479A1.txt
      • request for STA. Thus, it appears that SES apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating the Satcom C-3 satellite without Commission authority, and that SES apparently violated the requirement to file a modification application to extend the license pursuant to Section 25.117 of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-47A1.txt
      • contained in programming that was supplied by the same third-party programmer and involved many of the same advertisers as programming that drew a previous admonishment for violation of the Underwriting Rules. In these circumstances, no mitigation as a consequence of the ``embedded'' nature of the impermissible advertisements is warranted. B. Proposed Action 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-488A1.txt
      • ``chilling effect on [its] ability to continue full-time operations.'' Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-48A1.txt
      • appropriate. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to this case, we conclude that Ministerio is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's Underwriting Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Ministerio Radial Cristo Viene Pronto, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational Station WCRP(FM), Guayama, Puerto Rico, is HEREBY NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-49A1.txt
      • calls to action. The foregoing references appear to exceed the licensee's discretion under Xavier because each, in the context presented, refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters that are not necessarily possessed by competitors, or otherwise contain prohibited price information or other language of inducement. B. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-50A1.txt
      • substantially fewer and the period of time over which they aired is substantially less. Based on all the circumstances, and after examining forfeiture actions in other recent underwriting cases, we believe that a forfeiture of $2,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Cayuga County Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational Station WDWN(FM), Auburn, New York, is hereby NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-51A1.txt
      • rule violations while preparing to respond to our August 9th LOI, that fact alone does not raise a question of misrepresentation or lack of candor. There is, therefore, no basis on which to conclude that PRC failed to observe its duty to be truthful and candid before the Commission. B. Proposed Action 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-538A1.txt
      • until March 13, 2008, when Discovery filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Discovery violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-539A1.txt
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Capital Line's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 180(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Capital Line IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-545A1.txt
      • your letter response is ``October 31, 2008.'' However, the box the letter was mailed in was postmarked November 12, 2008. 47. U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J. See Tung Shih Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur., 2005). Enforcement Bureau staff visited www.aclickawayremotes.com on February 20, 2009. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-545 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-545 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 _ ` a e g - � i j � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-547A1.txt
      • frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines ``marketing'' as the ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-547 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-547 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 5 6 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-550A1.txt
      • Commission's public file Rules and implemented new measures to ensure future compliance; and (4) payment of the proposed forfeiture would be an extreme financial hardship on the Station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-551A1.txt
      • the proposed forfeiture would be ``devastating,'' especially when coupled with the fact that Licensee is also facing a possible forefeiture for its public file deficiencies at another station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-558A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Modena's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-560A1.txt
      • operating earth station E920702 and earth station E7541 without Commission authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Lockheed Martin also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the earth stations. IV. PROPOSED FORFEITURE Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-571A1.txt
      • amount assessed against KUOA is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for similar violations; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. For these reasons, KUOA contends, a reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining KUOA's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-588A1.txt
      • 92.9 MHz at 9026 West Brudick Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Skalecki reports that he operates a weather monitoring station from that property, but claims that the unlicensed broadcast station was operating from another nearby residence on which several antennas are located. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Skalecki's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-590A1.txt
      • it contends, must be considered a "good faith mistake." In this regard, Licensee attributes the basis of its "belief" on the Commission's "lack of clarity" or failure to explain the definition of "nonexempt," as recited in section 73.3527(e)(8) of the rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. It is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-609A1.txt
      • forfeiture is disproportionate to forfeitures issued in similar or more egregious cases; and (3) it voluntarily disclosed its public file deficiencies and undertook procedures to prevent future violations. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a reduction of the assessed forfeiture to $3,000. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-652A1.txt
      • of attracting more listeners. It states that its annual costs exceed its revenues, and as an example, refers to its 2004 federal tax return, which shows that its total revenue was $279,041, and that it operated at a deficit of $26,271. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. First, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-659A1.txt
      • Tennessee until the renewal deadline for the Station had already passed. Licensee claims that this mistake was inadvertent and did not constitute a willful violation of the Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-660A1.txt
      • further conclude that it is appropriate to admonish White Park with respect to its violations of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules for making environmental certifications in the Applications without having a reasonable basis for believing they were correct. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that White Park Broadcasting, Inc., is hereby ADMONISHED for its apparent willful violations of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED IT IS ORDERED, that the Informal Objections filed by Legend Communications of Wyoming, LLC, ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and ARE DENIED in all other respects. 35. IT IS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-669A1.txt
      • we find that any of the 249 non-DTV compliant receivers were imported prior to March 1, 2007, and sold by Hannspree in their two California-based retail stores from their inventory, then we should reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture accordingly. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-697A1.txt
      • SkyPort must pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. SkyPort has failed to either respond to the NAL or pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-728A1.txt
      • the Commission. In addition, Saga argues that imposing the proposed forfeiture for operation of its earth station without a license would be contrary to the public interest. Saga argues that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 301
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-734A1.txt
      • immediately took corrective action upon learning that the Station license had expired. Finally, Licensee asserts that it is a noncommercial educational station that operates on a limited budget. License asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-765A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that WorldNet's failure to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants an increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to compromise the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-779A1.txt
      • ID No. 25052 NAL/Account No. 200932080039 FRN 0005069802 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 8, 2009 Released: April 8, 2009 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Greater Boston Radio, Inc. ("Greater Boston" or the "Licensee"), licensee of Station WMJX(FM), Boston, Massachusetts ("Station WMJX" or the "Station"), broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof, and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-795A1.txt
      • the forfeitures exceed the amount assessed against other licensees that have committed similar violations of the Rules; and (3) Licensee lacks the financial resources to pay the forfeitures. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-79A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-79A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-79A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Bright House's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-80A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-812A1.txt
      • amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Bethune-Cookman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Bethune-Cookman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-81A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Charter's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-829A1.txt
      • to properly file the Application: (1) was inadvertent because Lankford thought it had been properly filed, and (2) may have been the result of technical difficulties in CDBS. Lankford asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Lankford first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-82A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Harron's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-830A1.txt
      • was relocated in July 2007. ICTI also admits that it did not notify the Commission that the Station's main studio had been relocated, as required by the rule. As a result of these facts, we find that ICTI has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules set a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the main studio requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.txt
      • ``sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.237(a). The grant of certification for the Listentech LT700 was issued on June 8, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) g h � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-83A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Comcast's failure to even attempt to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-84A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Suddenlink's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-85A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-880A1.txt
      • to his unfamiliarity with the Commission's electronic filing process and issues related to his deteriorating health. Licensee asserts it took immediate corrective action upon learning of the deficiencies. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-881A1.txt
      • had expired; (3) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules; and (4) payment of the forfeiture would severely restrict its ability to operate the Station. License asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-88A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 36395 NAL/Acct. No. 0941420010 FRN: 0003865078 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 21, 2009 Released: January 23, 2009 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that KLGT Licensee, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WUCW(TV), Minneapolis, Minnesota (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-897A1.txt
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against 1st United Tel-Com, Inc. (``1st United'' or ``Company''). 1st United violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. 1st United acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to 1st United a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on 1st United's apparent violation of a Bureau's directive. The NAL gave 1st United the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-90A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Kauai NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-930A1.txt
      • to the Station's budget and cause it financial hardship. Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-936A1.txt
      • failed to submit a response to the NAL. On December 9, 2008, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $25,000 forfeiture. On January 12, 2009, Rama filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-93A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Oahu Central NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-94A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's apparent failure to comply with the Cox NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture. Misconduct
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-95A1.txt
      • to a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Midcontinent's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-988A1.txt
      • that: (1) its failure to file properly the renewal application was not willful; and (2) it immediately took corrective action upon learning that the Station license had expired. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-991A1.txt
      • and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least one unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that One Stop Motors, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that One Stop Motors, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1029A1.txt
      • file was inadvertent; (2) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and (3) it will soon lose the right to operate the Station because of the pending construction of a full-service noncommercial educational (``NCE'') station in the area. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1042A1.txt
      • reduced because: (1) it would place financial hardship on both the station and his family; and (2) the Station ``is not a `repeat offender' against the FCC and to [his] knowledge [the Station] has never had a complaint filed against'' it. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In his
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1047A1.txt
      • considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CruiseEmail's conduct has continued for several years, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CruiseEmail's apparent violations occurring within the past year. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, set the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location at $4,000. Accordingly, we propose a total base forfeiture of $12,000 ($4,000 x 3 stations) against CruiseEmail for its operation of stations KDS, WGM, and WHX at unauthorized locations in apparent willful
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1052A1.txt
      • the Commission's database. Accordingly, we find that Freedom Communications did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC in the February 26, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1054A1.txt
      • to the NAL on February 9, 2010. In their response, Nierman and Kakadu do not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but request cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on their inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1063A1.txt
      • to reduce programming or to close the Station. Licensee submits copies of its 2004, 2005, and 2006 federal income tax returns to establish its inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. For these reasons, Licensee argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee requests
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1072A1.txt
      • inexperienced in dealing with and unadvised about FCC regulations; and (3) the proposed forfeiture ``would be over twice [Licensee's] overall surplus for the past three years,'' essentially a financial hardship. The Letter also includes notarized profit and loss statements for 2004-06. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1073A1.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Eight Friends. Eight Friends has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eight Friends IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Eight Friends shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1077A1.txt
      • 10. None of the foregoing announcements are permissible under Xavier because each, in the context presented is ``clearly promotional.'' Each announcement refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters and their products and seeks to distinguish them from competitors, or contains language of inducement. B. Proposed Action 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the enhanced underwriting requirements is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1079A1.txt
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Paisa. Paisa has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Paisa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Paisa shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1080A1.txt
      • Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara. Neither Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, nor Richard Parara has filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.txt
      • An intentional radiator is ``[a] device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. �15.3(o). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.201. A certification is ``an equipment authorization issued by the Commission based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant.'' 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C � 552a(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 ? @ � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1095A1.txt
      • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for AZ Prime One's willful and repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules and related orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-111A1.txt
      • Wyoming, but only after the filing deadline passed did it realize that it had failed to include Station K217EY in that application. It states that the renewal application for the Station was submitted on July 1, 2005, the same day that the omission was discovered. BBN further claims that the Commission improperly imposed a forfeiture for untimeliness, arguing that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form. It further asserts that its failure to timely file the license renewal application was neither willful nor repeated. BBN also argues that the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539 of the Rules, asserting that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-111A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-111A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-111A2.txt
      • Wyoming, but only after the filing deadline passed did it realize that it had failed to include Station K217EY in that application. It states that the renewal application for the Station was submitted on July 1, 2005, the same day that the omission was discovered. BBN further claims that the Commission improperly imposed a forfeiture for untimeliness, arguing that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form. It further asserts that its failure to timely file the license renewal application was neither willful nor repeated. BBN also argues that the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539 of the Rules, asserting that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1179A1.txt
      • 2008. In its Letter, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1196A1.txt
      • because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1256A1.txt
      • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1257A1.txt
      • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1258A1.txt
      • remain confidential. As set forth in detail in the confidential Appendix, we conclude that Alpheus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 4.9(f) of the Rules by failing to file an electronic Notification within 120 minutes and an Initial Communications Outage Report within 72 hours of discovering a reportable outage. B. Proposed Forfeiture Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1268A1.txt
      • Final Report. As detailed more fully in the Confidential Appendix, we find that Verizon's Final Report was incomplete and inaccurate in several important respects. We therefore find that Verizon apparently willfully violated Section 4.11 of the Rules by filing a Final Report that was not true, complete and accurate. B. Proposed Forfeiture Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1273A1.txt
      • file its application before the deadline was inadvertent; (2) it relied on the erroneous advice of Commission staff; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. For these reasons, CAT argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. First, CAT
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1274A1.txt
      • was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Myers apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on the frequency 95.9 MHz in Lauderhill, Florida on July 21, 2009, February 4, 2010, and March 7, 2010, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1280A1.txt
      • reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1281A1.txt
      • after its license expired. In response to the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (``Request'') on February 28, 2007. In its Request, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1282A1.txt
      • file its renewal application on a timely basis and that its failure to do so was inadvertent, and (2) is financially unable to pay the assessed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1289A1.txt
      • file its renewal application on a timely basis and that its failure to do so was inadvertent, and (2) is financially unable to pay the assessed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1290A1.txt
      • Taking into account the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude that a $20,000 proposed forfeiture is justified in light of AllCom's apparent failure to provide a response to the LOI. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that AllCom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1293A1.txt
      • has before it the captioned application of Enid Public Radio Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KEIF-LP, formerly KUAL-LP, Enid, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau (``Bureau''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Sections 73.503(d) and 73.811 of the Rules, as well as Section 399B of the Act, by willfully and repeatedly interrupting regular programming with unauthorized commercial announcements and operating at
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1308A1.txt
      • the Omnibus NAL, each of the companies listed in the Appendix provided evidence that they had, in fact, timely submitted a CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kurt A. Schroeder
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-130A1.txt
      • the Station. In addition, we have before us an additional minor modification application for the Station, filed by Ethics on October 6, 2008; this application is unopposed. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Ethics willfully and repeatedly violated Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Rules by engaging in an unauthorized transfer of control of the Station beginning in November of 2005. Based on our
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1346A1.txt
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Blake. Blake has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Dexter Blake IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Blake shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-138A1.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture to Ayustar in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Ayustar submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Ayustar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-142A1.txt
      • School, Mid-Virginia Broadcasting Corp., and John Brown University, that the forfeiture amount is much higher than those assessed against similarly situated stations, which as here, voluntarily disclosed the issues/programs public file violations, and that Licensee has a previously ``unblemished'' enforcement record. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1442A1.txt
      • on its history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. LSM Radio's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining LSM Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1449A1.txt
      • application. In the STA Request, Licensee explained that he had not previously held an FCC license, was unaware of the renewal requirements, and that the late-filing of the renewal application was inadvertent. Licensee did not submit a response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-153A1.txt
      • not in keeping with Commission precedent and that, in several instances, licensees were only admonished for public file violations. Gaston College also asserts that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its record of compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1555A1.txt
      • application of Keene Foursquare Church d/b/a Hope Chapel (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for low power FM (``LPFM'') Station WKHP-LP, Keene, New Hampshire (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1590A1.txt
      • excused from liability because: 1) it timely filed a renewal application for the Station, although it did not do so electronically; 2) its failure to properly file the renewal application was not willful; and 3) it is a noncommercial educational broadcaster. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee states
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1591A1.txt
      • arguing that its violation of Sections 73.3539 of the Rules and 301 of the Act was not intentional, and that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1592A1.txt
      • offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Taking this standard into account, and based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Nassau Broadcasting III, L.L. C., licensee of Station WWEG(FM), Myersville, Maryland, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-15A1.txt
      • dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Jerry and Deborah Stevens submitted a response to the NAL denying that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and requesting that the matter be dropped. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Jerry and Deborah Stevens' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1605A1.txt
      • On October 16, 2007, the Bureau issued a NAL in the amount of five hundred dollars to CCB. CCB submitted a payment of $500 on October 23, 2007, and filed its Letter requesting cancellation of the forfeiture on November 27, 2007. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Letter
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1634A1.txt
      • Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1635A1.txt
      • 18, 2005; and (2) copies of federal tax returns for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Hawkins asserts that these documents demonstrate that it has ``made every effort to maintain communication with the Commission'' regarding the filing of its renewal application. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Hawkins asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1648A1.txt
      • filed in 2009. Under the circumstances presented herein, we conclude that Turner engaged in the unauthorized transfer of control and unauthorized assignment of the 49 subject licenses in apparent willful violation of section 310(d) of the Act, and sections 25.119 and 1.948 of the Rules. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' In this regard, we note that every case presents a unique set of circumstances and turns on
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1654A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1657A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1659A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1666A1.txt
      • hundred and fifty dollars to Licensee. Licensee filed its Statement requesting cancellation of the forfeiture on November 18, 2009, arguing that the failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent and that the proposed forfeiture would be a financial hardship. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee suggests
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1671A1.txt
      • us, we find that Ms. Lubin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequency 90.1 MHz from her residence in North Miami, Florida on September 9 and October 22, 2009, and on April 22 and May 12, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1701A1.txt
      • its failure to timely file was unintentional; and (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. Living Word asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Living Word
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1707A1.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Christopher M. Myers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Myers will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1759A1.txt
      • has before it the captioned application of Southern Broadcasting & Investment Co. Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBTY(FM), Homerville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1760A1.txt
      • Broadcasting, Inc. ("W&B"), licensee of Station WASE(FM), Radcliff, Kentucky, a Response to Informal Objection (the ``Response'') filed by Skytower on October 15, 2004, and other related pleadings. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by relocating the Station's main studio to two separate locations prior to receiving Commission approval to do so. Based upon our review of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1765A1.txt
      • willfully violating Section 73.3539 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. The Bureau has since learned that Mr. De Rosa passed away. Because Mr. De Rosa is no longer living, we cancel the NAL. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Donald H. De Rosa IS HEREBY CANCELED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Mr. De Rosa assigned the Station to Cram Communications, LLC on November 21, 2007. See File No. BAL-20061109AAQ, granted on November 14, 2007. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3539. 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1766A1.txt
      • application for the Station, although it did not do so electronically; 2) its failure to properly file the renewal application was not willful; and 3) it did not receive a timely notice from the Commission that it should have filed electronically. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee states
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1767A1.txt
      • (2) the penalty imposed is inconsistent with that issued to licensees in similar situations; (3) it voluntarily disclosed its public violation; and (4) it took corrective measures to ensure future compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1768A1.txt
      • filed until May 10, 2004, almost six weeks after the Station's license expired. In response to the NAL, Central filed the subject Request stating that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture and requesting that its forfeiture be cancelled. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Central requests
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1769A1.txt
      • June 2, 2004. Licensee filed a response to the NAL (``Response'') on April 26, 2007. In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1793A1.txt
      • on March 20, 2007. In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1803A1.txt
      • American Taxi nevertheless continued its unlicensed operations. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American Taxi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 152.3900 MHz from its business in Daytona Beach, Florida on September 27 and 28 and November 22, 2009. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1842A1.txt
      • Mobile provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the years prior to 2006. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Amp'd Mobile, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1843A1.txt
      • to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1844A1.txt
      • violation of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Capital Telecommunications, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1845A1.txt
      • writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1846A1.txt
      • show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mechanicsville Telephone Company to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1907A1.txt
      • again on February 11, 2010. Morris operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Morris operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1908A1.txt
      • again on February 11, 2010. Brown operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Brown operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1911A1.txt
      • we find that the companies listed in the Appendix did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1951A1.txt
      • the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) payment of the proposed forfeiture would cause it financial hardship due to its limited financial resources, and (2) it made a good faith effort to comply with the Rules in a timely manner. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We turn
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1952A1.txt
      • untimely filing of the renewal application. Licensee submitted a response (``Response'') to the NAL on January 10, 2008. In its Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced because Licensee has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee notes
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1975A1.txt
      • for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false certification that it had not violated the Communication's Act or any Commission rules during the preceding license term, although not made with the intent to deceive the Commission, had no reasonable basis and therefore, apparently violated section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. �1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. � 1.17 (``... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In any written or oral statement of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1993A1.txt
      • the captioned application of the Department of Communications and Theatre of Mansfield University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WNTE-FM, Mansfield, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-19A1.txt
      • 326 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''); and (3) the Commission has not complied with its obligations under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''). We reject these arguments, as explained in detail below. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2003A1.txt
      • the captioned applications (the ``Renewal Applications'') of Katherine Timmerman Hagler (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of license for FM Translator Stations W285AJ and W296AI, Montgomery, Alabama (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file timely license renewal applications for the Stations, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2009A1.txt
      • Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) his failure to timely file the license renewal application was not willful; and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications of Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 5. Licensee
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2010A1.txt
      • has taken steps to develop policies and procedures to ensure that all future filings with the Commission will be done in a timely manner; and (2) it has no operating budget and is, therefore, financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2011A1.txt
      • should be excused from liability because: 1) it timely filed a renewal application for the Station, although it did not do so electronically; and 2) its failure to properly file the renewal application was not willful. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee states
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2030A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2030A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2030A1.txt
      • the unlicensed station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Chery apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating a radio station on 90.5 MHz in Spring Valley, New York without the requisite Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2032A1.txt
      • ``completely unaware'' of the deadline for filing the application or the Station's license expiration date. Also, Licensee states that it did not receive notice from the Commission regarding the license renewal due date or the lapse of the license. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 5. Licensee
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2033A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2033A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2033A1.txt
      • and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available WNYG's public inspection file at its main studio at any time during regular business hours and by failing to maintain and make available the radio issues/programs lists in the public inspection file on the day of the inspection. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public inspection file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2040A1.txt
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2041A1.txt
      • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2043A1.txt
      • 73.3526 of the Rules. Stone/Collins submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Stone/Collins does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Stone/Collins' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2044A1.txt
      • of the Rules. Rodgson submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Rodgson's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Rodgson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2046A1.txt
      • finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that MGA is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2049A1.txt
      • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2051A1.txt
      • a total of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) -- for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Citadel filed a joint response to each NAL on September 3, 2004, requesting cancellation of each of the proposed forfeitures (``Joint Request''). DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in these cases were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Citadel's Joint Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2057A1.txt
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Meridian's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government for the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2060A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2060A2.txt
      • 700- 4 200 MHz (coverage overlapping was not taken into account; frequency overlapping may be total or partial) Orbital separation ( �) Number of occurrences Percentage (%) 0 0.5 32 19.16 0.5 < 1.0 19 11.38 1.0 < 1.5 15 8.98 1.5 < 2.0 43 25.75 2.0 < 3.0 35 20.96 3.0 < 4.0 13 7.78 4.0 < 5.0 3 1.80 > 5.0 7 4.19 Total number of intervals 167 100 9 In the arc 139� W to 180� E a new filing would have to coordinate with networks that on average would be associated with approximately 5.2 satellites currently in orbit involved. 10 These assertions are being made discarding the possibility that a satellite network outside the coordination arc could
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2060A2_Rcd.pdf
      • 700- 4 200 MHz (coverage overlapping was not taken into account; frequency overlapping may be total or partial) Orbital separation ( �) Number of occurrences Percentage (%) 0 0.5 32 19.16 0.5 < 1.0 19 11.38 1.0 < 1.5 15 8.98 1.5 < 2.0 43 25.75 2.0 < 3.0 35 20.96 3.0 < 4.0 13 7.78 4.0 < 5.0 3 1.80 > 5.0 7 4.19 Total number of intervals 167 100 9 In the arc 139� W to 180� E a new filing would have to coordinate with networks that on average would be associated with approximately 5.2 satellites currently in orbit involved. 10 These assertions are being made discarding the possibility that a satellite network outside the coordination arc could
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2067A1.txt
      • any quarterly issues/programs lists for the current license term, which began June 1, 2006. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that 6 Johnson Road apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WXPK's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement ``''and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2069A1.txt
      • �� 64.2001 - 64.2009. See 47 C.F.R. �� 64.601 - 64.608. See 47 C.F.R. �� 6.1 - 6.23 and 7.1 - 7.23. See 47 C.F.R. �� 52.20 - 52.33 See 47 C.F.R. �� 4.1 - 4.13. See 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. See 47 C.F.R. � 64.604. See 47 C.F.R. � 52.17. See 47 C.F.R. � 52.32. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2069 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2069 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2094A1.txt
      • public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of the Main Studio Rule is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for not maintaining or making available a public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2097A1.txt
      • 951.500 MHz, but nonetheless continued to operate on that frequency. We therefore find that the violation was willful and repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Beacon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a Studio Transmitter Link on an unauthorized frequency. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with excessive power is $4,000 and for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2120A1.txt
      • Based on the evidence before us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Mapleton apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained at the Station KXDZ main studio. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2156A1.txt
      • evidence before us, we find that Mr. Smith apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain all required issues/programs lists in the station's public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000; (3) failure to repaint the antenna structure is $10,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2187A1.txt
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs.'' 47 C.F.R � 74.801 47 C.F.R � 74.870. 47 C.F.R � 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R �� 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2188A1.txt
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs.'' 47 C.F.R � 74.801 47 C.F.R � 74.870. 47 C.F.R � 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R �� 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2189A1.txt
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs.'' 47 C.F.R � 74.801 47 C.F.R � 74.870. 47 C.F.R � 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R �� 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2190A1.txt
      • Requested, to Comfort Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2191A1.txt
      • Requested to Holiday Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2192A1.txt
      • to Timber Ridge Lodge at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2193A1.txt
      • Receipt Requested to Ridgway at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2194A1.txt
      • to Best Western Rambler at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2195A1.txt
      • to Platte Valley Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2220A1.txt
      • id. (last visited November 22, 2010). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an ``intentional radiator'' as a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2221A1.txt
      • Application in the order issuing the NAL. In its Request, Peak asserts that payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship, and asks for a cancellation or substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Peak contends
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2226A1.txt
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2235A1.txt
      • based on inability to pay and imposed a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. On February 2, 2010, Ayustar filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its net losses rather than its gross revenues. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ayustar's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2240A1.txt
      • radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Jammer World is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Jammer World to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2250A1.txt
      • of the Rules. We therefore find that East Buchanan is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of $45,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing aid- compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii) of the Rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) for willful and repeated violation of sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and 20.19(d)(3(ii) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2254A1.txt
      • Exclusive Group No. 235. The issues involved also affect IJR's pending Crosbytown, Hulldale, and Cuero, Texas, applications (collectively, with the Quemado Application, the ``Applications''). 2. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that IJR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.65 of the Rules, by failing to report changes in relevant information in the Applications. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we grant the Petition in part, conclude that IJR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2260A1.txt
      • Bureau has before it the captioned application of Crawford County Community Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station DDWBRO(FM), Marengo, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2268A1.txt
      • the main studio does not have any designated personnel. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that J.M.J. Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station WQOR main studio during regular business hours. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2276A1.txt
      • The violation also occurred on more than one day, and was therefore repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Coss apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KCKX(AM) in accordance with the station's authorized power as specified on its license. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2277A1.txt
      • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for General Equipment's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2282A1.txt
      • additional information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2295A1.txt
      • lease, noncompliant radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Everbuying.com is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Everbuying.com to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2306A1.txt
      • a license. Mr. de Almeida submitted a response to the Second NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture based on his claim that he did not operate a radio transmitter on an unlicensed basis and his inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. de Almeida's responses, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2309A1.txt
      • unsolicited ads to consumers, and by terminating all business with the entities that the FCC has determined are apparently violating the junk fax rules. We therefore conclude that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL should not be imposed. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $13,500 issued to CyberData, Inc. in the July 18, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order WILL
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2312A1.txt
      • proposed forfeiture would cause it financial hardship due to its limited financial resources, (2) it made a good faith effort to comply with the Rules in a timely manner, and (3) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We turn
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2319A1.txt
      • Furthermore, licensees have the affirmative obligation to prevent misleading announcements respecting the contests that they conduct. They cannot rely on implications to accomplish that result. We therefore find that Good Karma violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the Contest. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the contest rules is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2321A1.txt
      • the NAL (``Response''). In its Response, Licensee states that reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2338A1.txt
      • day. The violation was willful because Dollar consciously and deliberately used its land mobile radios on the frequency 452.250 MHz without the requisite Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dollar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2339A1.txt
      • that cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because: (1) his failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause him financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2347A1.txt
      • until December 22, 2009, when WTB granted BASF's STA request. By operating station WPNZ510 after the license expiration date, BASF apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. BASF also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPNZ510. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-234A1.txt
      • foregoing reasons, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' In another case involving the same licensee, we proposed a $16,000 forfeiture for very similar conduct. The events underlying that proceeding
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2371A1.txt
      • additional information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2374A1.txt
      • filed a Request for Cancellation or Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture (``Request'') on January 14, 2008. In its Request, Trinity states that cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2385A1.txt
      • response to the NAL (``Response''). In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2393A1.txt
      • license expiration date, but was not actually filed until March 24, 2005, after the staff had written to Licensee indicating that the Station's license had expired and that (1) all authority to operate the Station was terminated; and (2) the Station's call letters were deleted from the Commission's database. Response at 2-3. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(A). See also Cumulus Licensing LLC, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 4471 (MB 2008) (declining, pursuant to Section 503(b)(6)(A) of the Act, to propose a forfeiture for willful and repeated Rule violations). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2393 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2393 ? @ A ] e u x ... � � � � � � (c)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2394A1.txt
      • the Bureau issued a NAL in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars to FACT. FACT submitted a payment of $250 and filed its Letter requesting cancellation of the forfeiture on November 7, 2007. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Letter
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2406A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish base forfeiture amounts for specific EEO rule violations, such as a failure to properly recruit for vacancies or to self-assess EEO performance. Accordingly, we must look to pertinent precedent involving similar violations to determine the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount here. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or downward
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2407A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish base forfeiture amounts for specific EEO violations, such as a failure to recruit for vacancies or to self-assess EEO performance. However, they do establish a base forfeiture amount of $1,000 for failure to maintain required records. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2428A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a specific rule
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2435A1.txt
      • a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that CT Communications is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in section 503 of the Act.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2436A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2439A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2440A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-24A1.txt
      • to the NAL on January 15, 2009. In its Response, Mt. Rushmore argues that its violations were not willful, that the violations were corrected after the inspection took place, and that the violations were not discovered during a prior inspection. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-258A1.txt
      • to similarly situated parties.'' Finally, Licensee states that ``in prior instances where the Media Bureau has determined that a licensee failed to publicize the existence and location of its Form 398 Reports, the Media Bureau has proposed substantially smaller forfeiture amounts.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee disputes
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-25A1.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture to Verizon in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules. Verizon submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Verizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-260A1.txt
      • were ``validated'' by the Bureau's electronic filing system (known as ``CDBS''); therefore, it failed to complete the filing process. It further states that payment of the proposed forfeiture would cause it financial hardship. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-261A1.txt
      • failure to timely file the renewal applications was unintentional and caused by its misunderstanding of allegedly ambiguous text in the renewal application Form 303-S and instructions. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Spokane does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-262A1.txt
      • willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules based on its admission that the 1996, 1997, and1998 issues/programs lists were temporarily missing from the public inspection file at the time of its renewal application filing. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Licensee's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-268A1.txt
      • In its response, Abacus does not dispute any of the findings in the NAL, but requests a cancellation or reduction based on its inability to pay and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-269A1.txt
      • an unauthorized location because it relied on the coordinates provided in its lease with the tower owner. In addition, SDACH requests that we cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture in light of SDACH's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining SDACH's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-26A1.txt
      • to maintain the issues/programs lists was not willful, but merely an oversight by new management that took over in September 2006. R-S Broadcasting further claims that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of R-S Broadcasting's demonstrated inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining R-S Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-287A1.txt
      • By operating station WPQD526 after the station's license expiration date of June 1, 2005, the University apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The University also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQD526. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-292A1.txt
      • the Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-293A1.txt
      • the Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-343A1.txt
      • file its renewal application on a timely basis and that its failure to do so was inadvertent, and (2) is financially unable to pay the assessed forfeiture. Fairview asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Fairview asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-344A1.txt
      • for Reconsideration of the Proposed Forfeiture (``Petition'') on January 6, 2006. In its Petition, Licensee states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent. Licensee asserts that this reason warrants a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-390A1.txt
      • show no grant of authority ever issued by the Commission approving an assignment or transfer of control of station licenses concerning this frequency to Lubbock Aero. Thus, it appears that Lubbock Aero violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 123.300 MHz without Commission authority. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was committing or omitting the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-392A1.txt
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of James K. Sharp (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for noncommercial educational Station WDJL(AM), Huntsville, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-3A1.txt
      • Such forfeiture amount may be adjusted upward or downward depending upon the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. In the instant case, we have taken into consideration Shop at Home Holding's failure over a period of more than two years to file corrective applications. On balance and after applying the factors set forth in Sections 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 is appropriate in this instance. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Shop at Home Holdings,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-413A1.txt
      • did not file the application until November 6, 2003, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the renewal application. In response to the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (``Letter'') on March 14, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-414A1.txt
      • did not file the application until October 4, 2005, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the renewal application. In response to the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (``Letter'') on March 19, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-415A1.txt
      • did not file the application until June 30, 2004, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the renewal application. In response to the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (``Letter'') on March 15, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-432A1.txt
      • The Commission has before it the captioned applications of Escalante City (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K237AD, Escalante, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-440A1.txt
      • 16, 2007. In its Request, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it would be a financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. FCR does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-441A1.txt
      • cancellation of the forfeitures is warranted because: (1) it did not ``willfully'' violate the Rules; (2) its staff consists of unpaid volunteers who do not ``have attorneys on retainer'' to advise them; and (3) it is a ``non-commercial, non profit'' entity. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-443A1.txt
      • on March 16, 2007. In its Letter, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it is a non-profit entity. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-455A1.txt
      • of whether the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time broker that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-456A1.txt
      • of whether the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time brokers that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-477A1.txt
      • list on July 1, 2004. See Complaint at 20, S.A. See Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 15 FCC Rcd 3236 (2000); Multimedia Cablevision, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 11 FCC Rcd 11202, 11208 (1996); Comark Cable Fund III v. Northwestern Indiana Telephone Co., 100 FCC2d 1244, 1259 (1985). 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, at � 29 (1998). We note that ``Defendants'' does not include Verizon Communications. See supra � 21. See Letter from Russ Smith to David Hunt, Senior Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau (April 15, 2005); see also Consumer.net LLC, et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-492A1.txt
      • prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the 503(b) factors to the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Journal Broadcast Corporation, licensee of Station KJOT(FM), Boise, Idaho, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-498A1.txt
      • of its Responses, Blue Mountain argued that: (1) the violations were not willful; (2) the forfeiture would result in financial hardship; and (3) it has ``gone to great lengths to follow practices that fully comply with all laws, rules and regulations....'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Blue Mountain
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-535A1.txt
      • Bureaus, acting on delegated authority) so orders in light of the relevant circumstances. 12. If SkyTerra exceeds the 25 percent limit contained in this Condition 3: (1) in the case of an initial violation, the violation shall be treated as a continuing violation, and SkyTerra shall be subject to a forfeiture of up to the maximum amount specified in Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3), as may be amended from time to time; and (2) in the case of a subsequent violation in the same Economic Area, SkyTerra's authorizations shall be rendered null and void without any further action required by the Commission. Each violation in an Economic Area shall be considered a separate act or failure
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-535A1_Rcd.pdf
      • of its Bureaus, acting on delegated authority) so orders in light of the relevant circumstances. 12.If SkyTerra exceeds the 25 percent limit contained in this Condition 3: (1) in the case of an initial violation, the violation shall be treated as a continuing violation, and SkyTerra shall be subject to a forfeiture of up to the maximum amountspecified in Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3), as may be amended from time to time; and (2) in the case of a subsequent violation in the same Economic Area, SkyTerra'sauthorizations shall be rendered null and void without any further 3099 action required by the Commission. Each violation in an Economic Area shall be considered a separate act or failure to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-541A1.txt
      • 2007 (``Response''). In its Response, Northwest seeks reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its (1) reliance on purportedly incorrect staff advice; (2) good faith efforts to timely file its renewal application; and (3) status as an NCE licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-566A1.txt
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Westport Board of Education (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WWPT(FM), Westport, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-575A1.txt
      • (``Response''). In its Response, Ritenour alleges that its good-faith efforts to timely file the renewal application and its reliance on staff advice with regard to continuing Station operations after its renewal application filing warrant reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-580A1.txt
      • Order of Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 8710, 8716-17 (2007) (rejecting licensee's argument that, under Section 503(b)(1)(B), an entity cannot be held liable for a continuing violation in a case involving the licensee's violations of several rules related to the Universal Service Fund ). See Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 11937. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. See 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 10-580 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-580 � � � � � F '' � � (c)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-586A1.txt
      • requested documents be provided ``within a reasonable period of time, which generally should not exceed 7 days.'' CRFI's explanation that the delay was caused by inadvertence or employee oversight is inadequate. As noted above, inadvertence or employee oversight do not excuse CRFI from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-590A1.txt
      • the Bureau ``was required to make a similar finding'' and refrain from issuing a forfeiture. It maintains that Bureau's failure to reconcile these two cases is arbitrary and capricious, and requires the Commission to rescind the NAL in its entirety. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 5. KATV
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-591A1.txt
      • with the Commission's Rules warrants reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Specifically, it states that since becoming an FCC licensee in March of 1998, it has never been the subject of an FCC notice of violation, notice of apparent liability, or forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. UBI does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-597A1.txt
      • continue operating pending consideration of the late-filed renewal application. Licensee explained that the late-filing of the renewal application was simply an oversight on its part. On December 26, 2007, Licensee submitted a letter (``Letter'') requesting reconsideration and waiver of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-598A1.txt
      • that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship, and (3) Licensee is a non-commercial entity. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-601A1.txt
      • (``Letter''), on March 20, 2007. In its Letter, Barnesville Broadcasting asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was an oversight, and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-603A1.txt
      • process, as well as his own unfamiliarity with the process, and (2) it would be a financial hardship for Licensee to pay the forfeiture amount. Dr. Kreider likewise argues in her letter that the forfeiture would be financially burdensome for Licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In his
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-619A1.txt
      • violates the fair notice principles stated in Rust Communications and the fairness and equity principles stated in Melody Music. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-620A1.txt
      • has before it the captioned application of Westchester Community College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Class D station WARY(FM), Valhalla, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-621A1.txt
      • Request. In its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-628A1.txt
      • Trustee (``Savage'') to Jireh Media, Inc. (``Jireh''). On August 26, 2009, Steven Lewis (``Lewis'') filed a pleading captioned ``Petition to Deny License Transfer for KQLO, Reno'' (``Objection''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, for the reasons stated below, we: (1) dismiss Lewis' pleading as a petition to deny; (2) grant the pleading as an informal objection to the extent discussed below and deny it in all other respects; (3) grant the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-632A1.txt
      • (``Houston Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $18,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KFW will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-633A1.txt
      • (``Houston Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(g), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KFW will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-634A1.txt
      • the untimely filing of the renewal applications or its failure to request special temporary authorization (``STA'') to continue the Stations' operations after its licenses had expired. In response to the NALs, Licensee submitted two letters (collectively, ``Requests'') on December 10, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee requests
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-63A1.txt
      • for unauthorized operation of the Stations. Licensee filed the subject Response. In its Response, Licensee states that its failure to timely file the renewal applications was unintentional, and that this reason warrants a reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-655A1.txt
      • disclosed the violations in its Applications; and (4) the forfeitures exceed the amount assessed against other licensees that have committed the same violations of the Rules. Licensee asserted that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we taken into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argued
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-656A1.txt
      • was not a program-length commercial, and modify the forfeiture accordingly (``Letter''). Further, CW, WB, and Sinclair request that if the Bureau finds that the Pokemon Episode was not a program-length commercial, that the Bureau also find that no host-selling occurred. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-657A1.txt
      • the forfeiture accordingly (``Letter''). Further, CW, WB and Sinclair request that if the Bureau finds that the Pokemon Program and the Xiaolin Showdown Program were not program-length commercials, that the Bureau also find that these incidents do not constitute Host-Selling. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-658A1.txt
      • was not a program-length commercial, and modify the forfeiture accordingly (``Letter''). Further, CW, WB, and Sinclair request that if the Bureau finds that the Pokemon Episode was not a program-length commercial, that the Bureau also find that no host-selling occurred. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-669A1.txt
      • to comply with the FCC's requirements concerning the marketing of radio frequency devices in the United States. Accordingly, we conclude that Phonejammer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing two models of phone jammers in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-673A1.txt
      • BBN explained that the untimely filing was ``wholly inadvertent.'' BBN submitted a ``Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Petition for Reconsideration'' (``Response'') on July 25, 2007. In its Response, BBN states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional. BBN further claims that the Commission improperly imposed a forfeiture for untimeliness, arguing that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form. It further asserts that its failure to timely file the license renewal application was neither willful nor repeated. BBN also argues that the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539 of the Rules, asserting that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-674A1.txt
      • attributed to its staff's unfamiliarity with the filing process; and (2) the Station is a Class D, student-run station that provides a unique service to the community. Centerville asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Centerville does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-675A1.txt
      • \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\kerning28 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 4.\tab}}\pard \ltrpar\s15\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\jclisttab\tx1440\wrapdefault{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls6\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls6\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\fs22\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(2)(D).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\fs22\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(b)(4).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 and the Commission\rquote s }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \i Forfeiture Policy Statement}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 .}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar \s18\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-690A1.txt
      • the forfeiture upward.'' Finally, WXDJ argues that the ``national economy and the decrease in broadcaster revenues in general'' warrant a reduction in the forfeiture amount. We reject these arguments as explained in detail below. discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-702A1.txt
      • the License and Modification Applications were filed by Saga Communications of New England, LLC (``Saga''), licensee of FM translator station W240CB, at Ithaca, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), and by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, for the reasons stated below, we: (1) dismiss the License Objection as moot; (2) grant in part and deny in all other respects the Modification and Supplemental Objections; (3) grant the Modification Application; and (4) conclude that Saga is apparently liable for a monetary
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-720A1.txt
      • was not a program-length commercial and/or reduces the proposed forfeiture in the San Antonio proceeding, that the Bureau reverse its finding in the NAL that ``Pokemon'' program constituted a program-length commercial and/or reduce the proposed forfeiture in the instant proceeding. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we taken into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee requested
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-723A1.txt
      • the forfeiture amount is warranted in light of its overall compliance with the Rules. Licensee also indicated that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Under these circumstances, contended Licensee, reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture amount is warranted. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-726A1.txt
      • occurring over a longer time period than the period of the violations reported by Station KMTW(TV). Nonetheless, argued Licensee, the forfeiture amounts issued are ``almost equivalent.'' For these reasons, Licensee asserted that the forfeiture assessed against it should be reduced. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We disagree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-729A1.txt
      • reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because: (1) Commission precedent cited in the NAL does not support the finding that the ``Pokemon'' incident was a program-length commercial; and (2) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-730A1.txt
      • Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) to Licensee for its violations. Licensee has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 73.3615 and 73.3526 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-731A1.txt
      • its core programming. Licensee reported that the local newspaper confirmed receiving the schedule, but only published this information when it had paid sponsors from businesses within the community. Licensee also suggested that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Section 73.673
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-732A1.txt
      • Licensee argued that (1) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture; and (2) it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules. For these reasons, Licensee contended that cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture is warranted. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Regarding Licensee's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-733A1.txt
      • that the forfeiture be rescinded in its entirety. As noted below, LICENSEE argues that: (1) the proposed forfeiture is unjustified; (2) the violations were neither willful nor repeated; and (3) the licensee ``has no history of prior violations of any kind.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-734A1.txt
      • licensee's otherwise good record and overall compliance and having not been cited in the past for any infraction of the Commission's rules and regulations. Woods concludes that the forfeiture should be reduced, or to be consistent with prior rulings, cancelled. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 6. Woods
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-740A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 56537 NAL/Acct. No. 1041420001 FRN: 0009405226 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 28, 2010 Released: May 4, 2010 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that WLOS Licensee, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WLOS(TV), Asheville, North Carolina (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-756A1.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Senat. Mr. Senat has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Balthazard Senat IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Senat will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-766A1.txt
      • impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Cost Crunch's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-777A1.txt
      • regular business hours. HTV filed a response (``Response'') on May 22, 2009. In its Response, HTV does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-77A1.txt
      • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-782A1.txt
      • to reduce the TPO during the inspection. Therefore, on January 7, 2010, the station exceeded the maximum TPO and maximum ERP. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Caribevision apparently willfully violated Section 74.735(b)(2) of the Rules by exceeding the maximum ERP for a digital LPTV station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-783A1.txt
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Hubbard apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Hubbard apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, overpower nighttime operations, and not maintaining, and making available, a public inspection file are, respectively, $8,000, $4,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-784A1.txt
      • evidence before us, we find that World Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that World Media apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, and violation of public file rules are, respectively, $8,000, $3,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-78A1.txt
      • has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude under this standard that Doro is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-796A1.txt
      • 80 days. As a result, Telefutura's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Telefutura apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment for its authorized DTV broadcast station, KFTU-DT, Douglas, Arizona. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-798A1.txt
      • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1219542, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Burken received the NAL, Burken has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Burken Broadcasting, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Burken Broadcasting, LLC, shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-799A1.txt
      • for operation of radio transmitters without a license, in violation of Section 301 of the Act. Despite evidence that Tropicana received the NAL, Tropicana has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Tropicana Products, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Tropicana Products, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-79A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-79A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-79A1.txt
      • that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that East Kentucky Network is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.txt
      • grant of certification for the MSR 300 on September 24, 2009. See FCC ID XOP-5840-SL-3000. See LOI Response at 4 and Exhibit C. Our investigation did not uncover similar evidence with respect to the marketing of the MSR 200. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1205. See LOI Response at 3-4. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-7 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-7 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-800A1.txt
      • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1014422, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MRBI received the NAL, MRBI has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-801A1.txt
      • with a valid authorization granted by the Commission, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Shimmick-Obayashi received the NAL, Shimmick-Obayashi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture, shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-80A1.txt
      • failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-81A1.txt
      • the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that TCT Mobile is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to file the required status reports in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules and for its apparent willful violation of a Commission order to provide information. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-829A1.txt
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Rolon. Rolon has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marixsa Rolon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Rolon shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.txt
      • Communications, Inc. (October 14, 2009). See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Esq. and Denise N. Smith, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 13, 2009). Id. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(e)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). To date, Firefly still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-830A1.txt
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Reid. Reid has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ronald Reid IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Reid shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-83A1.txt
      • for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-848A1.txt
      • 6 to represent the total households in Methuen. Comcast further explains that figures in that column represent Media Business Corp.'s (``MBC'') estimate of total households in the zip codes that overlap with the City. Comcast states that it does not associate all of the households in each of these zip codes to Methuen. Interpreting that information, Comcast states that only 1.80 percent of the 14,312 households in zip code 01841 (the zip code that the City disputes should be included in this case) would be associated with Methuen. Regardless, Comcast states that it relied on the U.S. Census occupied household figure for calculating the competing provider penetration in Methuen. Comcast notes that the 1.80 percent factor is relevant only to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-84A1.txt
      • that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that Airo is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.txt
      • Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 � 112. We note that 7-Eleven's web site promotes four handset models for use with its SPEAK OUT program: the Sanyo 2400, LG5225, Nokia 1600 and Motorola C139. See http://www.7-eleven.com/NewsRoom/NewsRoom2008/7ElevenMakesPrepaidWireles sMore Competitive. Thus, it does not appear that 7-Eleven falls within the de minimis exception. See 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(e). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-90A1.txt
      • Forfeiture to ECPI in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules. ECPI submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining ECPI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-91A1.txt
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. � 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as ``any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.txt
      • John Marick, CEO, Consumer Cellular, to Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 11, 2009) (``LOI Response''). LOI Response at 1. Id. at 2. LOI Response at 1-2. See Consumer Cellular, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report (filed November 8, 2009) at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020347130. LOI Response at 2. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.txt
      • $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry); Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3688 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry). 47 U.S.C. � 610(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.txt
      • benchmarks is appropriate with regard to ``service providers that are not Tier I nationwide providers, including regional and smaller providers, such as Tier II and Tier III carriers, and other service providers such as resellers and MVNOs.''). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 D E `` � � (c) � &`#$ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.txt
      • such as resellers and MVNOs.''). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). To date, Circle K still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. We note that on January 11, 2010, Circle K did file its report that was due January 15, 2010. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' `` � � � � � &`#$ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-934A1.txt
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Movida sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.movidacelular.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 � 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to ``service providers that are not Tier
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.txt
      • Commission, to David Inns, President, GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug (December 1, 2009). See Letter from Todd Slamowitz, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP, counsel for GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (December 15, 2009). (``Response'') See Response at 2. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(e)(1). Id. 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-937A1.txt
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Liberty sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.libertywireless.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 � 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to ``service providers that are not Tier
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.txt
      • See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, DA 10-85 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., released January 14, 2010). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(i)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 20.19(h). See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 � 112. As of March 2, 2010, PlatinumTel's web site did not evidence compliance with section 20.19(h) of the Rules. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' ( � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-995A1.txt
      • the ``American Dad'' episode does not excuse in any way Fox's obligation to provide the requested information. In light of well-established Commission precedent, therefore, Fox's failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI and March 19th Letter constitutes apparent willful and repeated violations of a Commission Order and of Section 73.1015. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1000A1.txt
      • he consciously operated his CB station with an amplifier, we find that the apparent violations were willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Hays apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and sections 95.410 and 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1007A1.txt
      • (``NAL''). Id. Id. Id. Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 11923. (same). Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 11924-25. In addition to being unsigned, the tax returns listed a different corporate name than the name Neely claims to use. Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC, 345 F.2d 730, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1965). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Petition at 1-2. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106; WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1008A1.txt
      • does not ordinarily issue forfeitures for late-filed Form 301 applications. Thus, he claims we should rescind the Forfeiture Order because it violates the principles set forth in Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC. We reject this unsupported argument. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and was consistent with prior forfeitures for similar violations. Neely next asserts that the Forfeiture Order should be rescinded because his late filing did not prejudice any party. Again, we disagree. The Bureau does not consider the absence of public harm a mitigating factor in a Rule violation. Regardless, the untimely filing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1009A1.txt
      • error in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or unknown additional facts not known or existing at the time of petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. Faith Trinity has failed to meet this burden. The forfeiture amount for the violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Faith Trinity's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1010A1.txt
      • or Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture'' (``Response''). In its Response, Linfield argues that the NAL should be canceled or reduced because: 1) proposed forfeiture is barred by the statute of limitations; and 2) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1025A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Voip Alliance and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Voip Alliance, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1026A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Touch-Tel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Touch-Tel USA, LLC. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1028A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Phone Club and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Phone Club Corporation. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1029A1.txt
      • noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nu Era Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1031A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise DigitGlobal Communications and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1032A1.txt
      • We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Straightel and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1043A1.txt
      • section 301 of the Act. American Taxi submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture arguing that: (1) it was operating pursuant to a license, and (2) it was never warned that its actions violated the Act. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining American Taxi's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1050A1.txt
      • June 12, 2009. In its Response, Lazer Broadcasting argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled, because Lazer Broadcasting is not a licensee, or reduced, because there was no harm caused by its failure to update both antenna structure registrations. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Based on our review
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1054A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Bazile. Mr. Bazile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marckenson Bazile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Bazile shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1062A1.txt
      • the main studio on the day of inspection as required by section 73.3526 of the Rules. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Wall apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WLSW's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1064A1.txt
      • in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or unknown additional facts not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. TTU has failed to meet this burden. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As noted
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1071A1.txt
      • in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or unknown additional facts not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. Licensee has failed to meet this burden. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As noted
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-108A1.txt
      • filed a Request for Cancellation or Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture (``Request'') on September 30, 2010. In its Request, Southern states that cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1091A1.txt
      • when the petitioner shows either a material error in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or additional facts not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. The forfeiture amount for this violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1093A1.txt
      • of the alien ownership restrictions. Am�rica M�vil is therefore apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $8,000 for its willful violation of section 310(b)(4) of the Act and the 2007 MO&O and Declaratory Ruling. The Commission's rules provide, however, that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation ... and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We conclude that Am�rica M�vil's ability to pay warrants an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount. To ensure that a proposed forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1105A1.txt
      • Faith Baptist Church, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9146, 9148 (MB 2007); Geneva Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 10642, 10644 (MB 2006). Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 14650. Petition at 2-3. Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, � 39 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 5 U.S.C. � 601-12 (2006). Petition at 2-3. 47 U.S.C. � 405; 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). Section 405 of the Act does not require the Commission to afford the licensee with personal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1111A1.txt
      • communications to facilitate the activities of an adult individual and his or her immediate family members. See 47 C.F.R. �95.179. A non-individual (any entity that is not an individual - such as corporations, partnerships, associations, governmental units etc.) is not eligible to obtain a license for a new GMRS system. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1123A1.txt
      • but the public inspection file was not made available at that time. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available, during more than one visit, a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain a main studio with a meaningful staff presence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1135A1.txt
      • In its Letter, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) it attempted to timely file the application and believed that the filing had been successfully completed electronically; and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1137A1.txt
      • an educational and community-related purpose; (2) the student-run nature of the Station warrants a measure of leniency when assessing the penalty; and (3) it will take steps to prevent future violations by designating a non-student supervisor to oversee its public file. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1138A1.txt
      • thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Pittsfield Public School Committee on November 19, 2010, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS ALSO ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that Pittsfield Public School Committee IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's Rules and Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1142A1.txt
      • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1164A1.txt
      • WL 242469 (OET, May 13, 1996). The LawMate 500 mW 2.4 GHz and 1 W 2.4 GHz transmitters operate on frequencies outside of the authorized amateur radio service bands, including restricted frequencies listed in section 15.205(a). Thus, these devices are not amateur radio devices exempt from the equipment certification requirements. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1165A1.txt
      • Rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 74.801, 74.851. We note, however, that these four models of wireless microphones do not operate on frequencies allocated for low power auxiliary stations under Part 74. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.802. Accordingly, these wireless microphones are not eligible for certification as Part 74 devices. . See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. � 1.17 (``... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1170A1.txt
      • the VNR material seeking to persuade them. We find by a preponderance of the evidence that Fox's airing of VNR material on Station KMSP-TV's June 19, 2006 news program without providing a sponsorship identification announcement violated section 317 of the Act and section 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. The Fifteen Day Period for Fox's NAL Response was Reasonable under Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules provides that when the Bureau issues a Notice of Apparent Liability, the ``[r]espondent will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1174A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Antonio Robinson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Robinson shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1183A1.txt
      • any of these transactions until after each had been consummated, and (ii) did not disclose four of the eight transactions until the Enforcement Bureau's investigation and only after WCB had granted the applications. The violation periods range from approximately 2.5 months to approximately 3.5 months. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing Rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1189A1.txt
      • should apply may request a refund. All such requests must be submitted in writing, with an explanation of the grounds for the request, to: Office of the Managing Director Office of the Chief Financial Officer Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW (Attn: Chief, RROG, Rm 1-A724) Washington, DC 20554 See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5). Other statutory amounts may apply based on the status of the licensee. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(1), (2). In addition, in determining the amount of the forfeiture penalty, the Commission may consider other statutory factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1189A1_Rcd.pdf
      • of these rules. Operation in violation of the Commission's rules may subject licensees to appropriate enforcement action, including admonishments, license revocation, and/or monetary forfeitures of up to $16,000for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation and up to $112,500 for any single act or failure to act.11 11See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5).Other statutory amounts may apply based on the status of the licensee. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(1), (2). In addition, in determining the amount of theforfeiture penalty,the Commission may consider other statutory factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1194A1.txt
      • where the file was located. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Spirit apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file at its main studio and apparently willfully failed to make available its public inspection file upon request. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, for AM tower fencing is $7,000, and for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1217A1.txt
      • took affirmative steps to terminate the lease with the unidentified renter; (4) a broadcasting outfit known as WBIG is responsible for any unlicensed operations on 95.9 MHz and 91.7 MHz; and (5) he does not hold any pecuniary interest in WBIG. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Petition, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1227A1.txt
      • the Licensee on April 26, 2011 (requesting authority for the station to remain silent) and June 16, 2011 (requesting authority to operate with other than licensed facilities). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau (the ``Bureau'') by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1228A1.txt
      • only when petitioner shows either a material error in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or unknown additional facts not known or existing at the time of petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. Licensee has failed to meet this burden. The forfeiture amount for the violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1233A1.txt
      • (2) they believed the radio station complied with all FCC regulations; (3) they ceased operating the station as soon as they became aware that it was illegal; and (4) they do not have the financial resources to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Alleyne's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1243A1.txt
      • compliance measures described above, the unusual circumstances preventing construction, and the appointment of a receiver are all relevant to our consideration of any forfeiture, and in this case to our determination to impose no forfeiture penalty. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., in the above captioned proceeding WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent both by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., at 2200 East Parks Highway, Wasilla, Alaska,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1244A1.txt
      • record and based upon additional information provided by RAMCO, we are persuaded that RAMCO did not own the antenna structure during the violations cited in the NAL and agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to RAMCO Broadband Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to RAMCO Broadband Services at 726 US Highway 202 Suite 320-119, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2737. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional Director
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1258A1.txt
      • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Dezco Communications, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Dezco Communications WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Dezco Communications, Inc., Attn. Ronald F. Zeiler, President, 13506 S. Kenton St., Crestwood, IL 60445. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1259A1.txt
      • an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Galaxy Internet Services, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Galaxy Internet Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Galaxy Internet Services, Attn. Robert Carp, President, 188 Needham St., Suite 110R, Newton, MA 02464. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-125A1.txt
      • of the Rules defines an ``intentional radiator'' as a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). (last visited on 1/24/2011). We note that the device is currently listed on the web site with the date ``January 16, 2010.'' See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. �1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1266A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $22,000 to Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Judith V. Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Judith V. Smith shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1272A1.txt
      • was unavailable to the public for a period of four months. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that HK Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available the Station KFOX public inspection file at the station's main studio. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1311A1.txt
      • find that Rapidwave apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating an intentional radiator in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with its Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1312A1.txt
      • 5445 MHz, 5650 MHz, 5670 MHz, and 5725 MHz in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Sling apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on January 5 and 10, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1313A1.txt
      • the Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ayustar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1314A1.txt
      • operate on the frequencies 5540 MHz or 5600 MHz in Kansas City, Missouri. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Insight apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on February 4 and 18, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1323A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Rhodd. Mr. Rhodd has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mikhail Rhodd IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mikhail Rhodd shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1329A1.txt
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of WKLC, Inc. (``WKLC'' or the "Licensee") for modification of license (the ``Application'') for Station WKLC-FM, St. Albans, West Virginia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau (the ``Bureau'') by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3598 of the Rules by failing to timely file a License to Cover Application, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1339A1.txt
      • Media Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Nievezquez Productions, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WPRX(AM), Bristol, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1340A1.txt
      • that it failed to place quarterly issues/programs reports in the public inspection file from 2000 through the first quarter of 2004, and only then properly formatted the lists and placed them in the Station's public file. WPW Broadcasting, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 13250 (MB 2010) (``Forfeiture Order''). Petition at 3-6. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(A), as implemented by 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(1). See also Cumulus Licensing LLC KGEE(FM), Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 4471 (MB 2008) (declining, pursuant to Section 503(b)(6)(A) of the Act, to propose a forfeiture for willful and repeated Rule violations). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 August 3, 2011 ! � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1341A1.txt
      • file a required form'' but rather filed it late; (2) the forfeiture amount is ``far out of proportion to the seriousness of the violations;'' and (3) its history of compliance with the Rules warrants reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Butler first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1344A1.txt
      • warranted because: (1) an imposition of the forfeiture would not serve the public interest; and (2) the forfeiture would impose a substantial financial hardship upon the Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township and WBDG. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1351A1.txt
      • its Request, Licensee argues that a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture is warranted because: (1) the forfeiture would impose a substantial financial hardship upon the Station; and (2) the forfeiture amount is excessive. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-135A1.txt
      • 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an ``intentional radiator'' as a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1384A1.txt
      • supplied federal tax returns for the years 2004 and 2005, audited financial statements for 2006, and a profit and loss statement for the first six months of 2007. The Response does not contest the NAL's findings with respect to the violations. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1385A1.txt
      • violation occurred during a period of frequent turnover; (3) Licensee voluntarily disclosed its violations; (4) upon recognition of the violation, Licensee immediately and voluntarily complied with the Rules; and (5) Licensee has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We decline
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1386A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $12,000 to Miller Communications. Miller Communications has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Miller Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violations of section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Miller Communications, LLC shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1435A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Patrick Michael Ford, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Ford shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1437A1.txt
      • (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Faith Community Church (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W261AE, Camden, Delaware (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1438A1.txt
      • it the captioned application of Family Worship Center Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W208BC, Corning, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1439A1.txt
      • OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: August 22, 2011 Released: August 23, 2011 By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: Introduction MSG Radio, Inc. (``MSG''), assignee of WIAC-FM (``Station''), filed a Petition for Reconsideration (the ``Petition'') of the Forfeiture Order issued to MSG and Luis A. Mejia (``Mejia''), assignee of the Station, on November 19, 2008, for their willful violation of Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') by failing to provide required information on the above-captioned application (``Application'') for Commission consent to the assignment of the Station's license from Mejia to MSG. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the Petition and affirm the forfeiture issued by the Media Bureau, Audio Division (``Bureau'') in the total amount of three thousand dollars
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1468A1.txt
      • manual in willful and repeated violation of section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the Rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or any Rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. Under section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, we may assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, broadcast licensee or cable operator a forfeiture of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1475A1.txt
      • backup dispatch channel rather than its licensed main dispatch channel on 159.150 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gutierrez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the LVPD's licensed operations, on February 15, 2011, and February 16, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1487A1.txt
      • Structure on September 1, 2010 and that it filed an FCC Form 854 on December 9, 2010. Because Washington Gas failed to notify the FCC of a change in the structure's ownership until December 9, 2010, we find that Washington Gas apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; and (2) failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1491A1.txt
      • its PLMRS station without Commission authority from June 15, 2007 until September 10, 2010, when its STA request was granted. By operating station WQFD453 for a period of more than three years after the license had been cancelled, Northeast Utilities apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1497A1.txt
      • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1503A1.txt
      • was causing direct interference with air traffic control. Power admitted that the station used this transmitter from March 19, 2010 until June 11, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Power apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules by utilizing a non-certified LPFM transmitter. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1505A1.txt
      • to public file maintenance''; (4) its broadcast of ``programming responsive to community needs and interests during the two years prior to the NAL,'' and (5) its post-inspection efforts to remedy the public inspection file violation. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining CBC's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1506A1.txt
      • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand, five hundred dollars ($17,500) for violations of sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), 11.35(a), 73.3526, and 74.532(e) of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., shall also send electronic notification to WR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1528A1.txt
      • the Commission's tower rules and $10,000 for the apparent violation of the Commission's public inspection file requirements. On December 19, 2008, Taylor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Taylor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1529A1.txt
      • Act and section 63.18 of the Rules because it failed to obtain Commission approval before providing international telecommunications service. The Commission has consistently imposed forfeiture penalties in the amount of $100,000 for failing to obtain an international section 214 authorization before providing international telecommunications service. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' There is no evidence before us to suggest that the base amount should be adjusted in any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1536A1.txt
      • which in turn, could have impacted the Auction No. 86 results. Thus, the Commission was unable to determine both the actual amount owed by VTel, and whether VTel was still entitled to the small business bidding credit, until after Mr. Hewlett's full income was disclosed. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Consistent with Commission precedent, we find that a base forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1538A1.txt
      • not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Meriden and Jefferson systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1539A1.txt
      • action does not nullify or mitigate any prior violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file the required FCC Form 320s for the Perry and Lecompton systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1540A1.txt
      • action does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Pottawatomie system for calendar years 2009 and 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1572A1.txt
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Sling. Sling has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Sling Broadband, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Sling shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1577A1.txt
      • the NAL acknowledging that he committed the violation, but denying that he ``used the radio knowing that it was illegal.'' Mr. Lindor also requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture because he asserts that he cannot afford the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lindor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1578A1.txt
      • of the Rules. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Lebron apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1579A1.txt
      • he had ``made the changes [he] had to.'' Mr. Hays requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture, however, because he lives solely on social security benefits and asserts that, as a result, he cannot afford to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Hays's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-157A1.txt
      • the Act directs us to consider factors, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' As we explain below, having considered the statutory factors, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a radio station without Commission authority. Based on the record in this proceeding, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000 for Scottsdale Lexus's unauthorized operations. We note that the base forfeiture amount is subject to adjustment, either upward or downward. Here, however, we find no basis for any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1580A1.txt
      • impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Western Aviation's willful or repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules for the reasons set forth in the NAL and herein. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1584A1.txt
      • and apparently willfully violating section 333 of the Act by maliciously interfering with the USCG on Marine Channel 16. In his response, Perka admits to the findings in the NAL, but requests a reduction based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Perka's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-159A1.txt
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. � 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as ``any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1601A1.txt
      • before it the captioned application of Family Worship Center Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K235CZ, Winona, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its license had expired.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1602A1.txt
      • (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Riverton Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K292BA, Dubois, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its license had expired.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1603A1.txt
      • (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of St. Bonaventure University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSBU(FM), St. Bonaventure, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1641A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a specific
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1651A1.txt
      • still has not been assigned a community unit number or physical system number. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that St. George apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1801 of the Rules by failing to submit a registration statement with the Commission on FCC Form 322. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000; and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. Cable signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1661A1.txt
      • Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers, and Other Jamming Devices, Retailers Advised that the Marketing or Sale of Devices Designed to Block, Jam, or Interfere with Authorized Radio Communications Is Strictly Prohibited in the U.S., Public Notice, DA 11-249 (Feb. 9, 2011), available at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement; New Generation Hobbies, Citation, DA 11-1164 (July 1, 2011). See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5). See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See id. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). We expressly reserve the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1663A1.txt
      • 301 of the Act. In response, Licensee filed the subject Response arguing that these violations were not intentional, and that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1673A1.txt
      • Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the August 24, 2011, request of Tallie Colville (``Colville''), for waiver of the post-auction Form 301 long-form application filing deadline. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Colville apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a post-auction Form 301 application. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1675A1.txt
      • the NAL, we will not consider them here. We also deny Mr. Skalecki's request for an evidentiary hearing under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, which states that ``[a]t the discretion of the Commission, a forfeiture penalty may be determined against a person .. after notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Commission or an administrative law judge....'' Section 1.80(g) of the Rules states that procedures for hearings ``will ordinarily be followed only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture....'' Section 1.80(g) of the Rules further states that ``these procedures may be followed whenever the Commission, in its discretion, determines that they will better serve the ends of justice.'' Accordingly, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1688A1.txt
      • chronologically) of translator K265AS, Livingston, Montana (``Station'') filed by Reier Broadcasting, Inc. (``Licensee''). Also before us is Capstar TX Limited Partnership's (``Capstar'') Petition to Deny and its ``Motion to Dismiss'' filed against the First and Second Applications, respectively, as well as related pleadings. Pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), we find that Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the First Application for the Station and for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after its license had expired. Based upon our review of the facts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1704A1.txt
      • constitute issues/programs lists and, in any event, were not in the public file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Meade apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WMMG's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public files rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1710A1.txt
      • opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Blue Casa, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on Blue Casa. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to Blue Casa Communications, Inc. WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Katherine Barker Marshall, Attorney, Arent Fox LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-5339. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1720A1.txt
      • for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545 (Enf. Bur. 2003) ($10,000 forfeiture for a non-responsive reply to an LOI); Digital Antenna, Inc., Sunrise, Florida, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7600 (Spectrum Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2007) ($11,000 forfeiture for failure to provide complete responses to an LOI). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See id. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1721A1.txt
      • EAS equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Upper Peninsula apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Powers, Michigan. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1722A1.txt
      • operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1730A1.txt
      • of $10,000 against Mr. Morey for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Morey submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting that he ``is in no position to be able to pay'' the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Morey's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1737A1.txt
      • the NAL was issued after the expiration of the statute of limitations, Clarion claims in the alternative that it is entitled to a reduction in the amount of the proposed forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Clarion's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1738A1.txt
      • ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of section 1.903(a) of the rules. on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both regular mail and by certified
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1743A1.txt
      • forfeiture against Mr. Fleurinor for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Fleurinor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting the forfeiture ``would create an impossible burden for Mr. Fleurinor to bear or satisfy.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Fleurinor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1745A1.txt
      • failed to notify the Commission that it had acquired antenna structure number 1246297. Based on the evidence before us, we find that P&Y Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure number 1246297. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file forms or required information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-174A1.txt
      • modifying or cancelling the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for See Through Windows's willful and repeated violation of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows & Doors LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1750A1.txt
      • station consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Criteser apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1752A1.txt
      • before it the captioned application of Vermont Agency of Transportation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WRAN-LP, Randolph, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1753A1.txt
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Hartford Board of Education (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WQTQ(FM), Hartford, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1755A1.txt
      • that it had not maintained a public file since the public library, where they previously maintained their public file, closed "several years ago." Accordingly, we find that R.J. willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a local public inspection file. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000; operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000; and failing to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1756A1.txt
      • time from the San Francisco Office to respond. In his Response, Roberts acknowledges his involvement with PCR, but argues that he is not associated with the transmissions of PCR. Roberts also argues that he is ``financially unable'' to pay the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1757A1.txt
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Salmon River Communication, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KSRA(AM), Salmon, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1758A1.txt
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Salmon River Communication, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KSRA-FM, Salmon, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1769A1.txt
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1771A1.txt
      • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Intercel, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Intercel WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc., Attn. Joseph Gatt, CEO, 3914 Centreville Rd., Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1775A1.txt
      • because Mr. Cernogg operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cernogg apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1777A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for AMS's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NALs and herein. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1779A1.txt
      • 7 and 11, 2011, an agent from the Houston Office observed Station KBRZ operating with its daytime power of 3200 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ACB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1786A1.txt
      • Requested, to Fireside Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1787A1.txt
      • the Dublin House Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-178A1.txt
      • WWRR installed at either location from the time Bold Gold purchased the station in 2006 until February 2010. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Bold Gold apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install the required EAS equipment for Station WWRR. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1794A1.txt
      • Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1798A1.txt
      • corrected all of the violations set forth in the NAL and requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture due to its limited station funding which ``relies entirely on donations from the listener community.'' III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Consolidated Radio's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1802A1.txt
      • found that the gate on the northeast side of the Antenna Structure was still open. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Equity apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the antenna structure with an effective locked fence or enclosure. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1805A1.txt
      • the captioned application of Calvary Chapel of the Redwoods (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KRDW-LP, Smith River, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1807A1.txt
      • over its authorized nighttime, post-sunset and pre-sunrise power for more than one day; and conclude that CRNI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KPIO in accordance with the Station's authorized power, as specified on the Station's license, on more than one day. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1809A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-180A1.txt
      • MHz at the Torrance Airport, an action that violates the licensing requirements of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that South Bay Aviation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1812A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1822A1.txt
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $25,000 to Spirit. Spirit has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Spirit Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1823A1.txt
      • current cases. Because Licensees raise an argument already considered and rejected, it will not be reexamined. Next, the Licensees argue that levying a larger forfeiture against the Licensees than against certain licensees who file their untimely renewal applications closer in time to the violation was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' We reject this argument. Under Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the Bureau has the discretion to adjust the proposed forfeiture based on the ``nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation.'' In keeping with this discretion, however, the Bureau consistently has assessed the full three thousand dollar ($3,000) base forfeiture amount for licensees who, as here, file their renewal applications more than thirty days after the expiration
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1825A1.txt
      • forfeiture based on its inability to pay the forfeiture. On July 7, 2011, Andrews Tower stated that the Tower was ``in all respects lit in accordance with Commission requirements'' and that it had obtained estimates for the demolition of the Tower. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Andrews Tower's response, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1828A1.txt
      • violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all of the required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure on more than one day and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain required records. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-182A1.txt
      • February 25, 2010, by Rejoynetwork, LLC, IS DENIED, and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rejoynetwork, LLC is liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1834A1.txt
      • station. Because he consciously operated with unauthorized amplifiers, we find that the apparent violation was willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Perry apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and section 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter with two amplifiers. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1848A1.txt
      • forfeiture. We rejected these arguments in the Forfeiture Order. In response, the College timely filed the subject Petition. 4. In its Petition, the College reiterates its argument that its failure to timely file a renewal application for the Station was not willful. The College also argues that the Bureau's reliance, in part, on the base amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules for failure to file a required form should not apply to instances of late filings, and therefore, the forfeiture amount should be either set aside or substantially reduced. Finally, the College argues that public interest considerations warrant either a reduction or elimination of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The Commission will consider a Petition for Reconsideration only
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-184A1.txt
      • issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cricket, the base forfeiture is $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. Given the totality of the circumstances, we find a significant forfeiture appropriate. The Commission has stated that ``[we rely] heavily on
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1876A1.txt
      • companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Unintec, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Unitec WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Unitec Hospitality Service, Attn: Walter E. Bader, President, 122 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80209. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1877A1.txt
      • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1911A1.txt
      • on the evidence before us, we find that CIT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(1) and 74.851(f) of the Rules by manufacturing and marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, two models of the Modulus video assist transmitters, in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1914A1.txt
      • repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure for over two months, and by failing to update the ownership information for the Antenna Structure for over two years. B. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. The base forfeiture for failure to make required notifications, including ownership notifications, is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1919A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to St. George. St. George has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, St. George Cable, Inc. LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35(a), 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a) and 76.1801 of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. St. George Cable, Inc. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1938A1.txt
      • June 23, 2011, respectively. Media Council has filed responses to the April 1, 2011 and April 22, 2011 ex parte letters. 2. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the Complaint, to the extent set forth herein, and deny it in all other respects. Pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, this order constitutes a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 for HITV's willful and repeated violation of section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules as a result of its failure to properly maintain and provide access to its public inspection file for Station KFVE(TV). II. BACKGROUND 3. On August 18, 2009,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1944A1.txt
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1947A1.txt
      • has before it the captioned application of Lincoln University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Class D FM Station WWLU(FM), Lincoln University, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1961A1.txt
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned applications of Hope Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WFGN(AM), Gaffney, South Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file timely license renewal applications for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.txt
      • Issued by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau -FCC- 47 C.F.R. �� 54.401(a)(1) and 54.405. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Lifeline and Link Up, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 26 FCC Rcd 9022 at para. 9 (2011). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 180(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). See 47 U.S.C. � 214. PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 $ $ ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1975A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $15,000 to Mr. Criteser. Mr. Criteser has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, John E. Criteser, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. John E. Criteser, Jr. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1976A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Neal Davis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Neal Davis shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1977A1.txt
      • EAS equipment had not been operational since the station was vandalized in December of 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MMG apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KRDD(AM) EAS equipment. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1980A1.txt
      • the Station until April 5, 2011. In its Response, Licensee asserts that it was misinformed by the Station's engineer about the appropriate process for seeking a renewal and that Station's financial difficulties warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.txt
      • Competition and Broadband Reporting (2011) (regarding filings due March 1, 2012), available at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf (FCC Form 477 Instructions). We attach a list of Frequently Asked Questions to provide guidance for the most common filing concerns. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.7001, 43.11; FCC Form 477 Instructions at 5, 14-16, 19. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 180(b); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 @ A D l D $ $ ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1998A1.txt
      • amount for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for ``[e]gregious misconduct,'' or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an ``[i]ntentional violation'' or ``[r]epeated or continuous violation.'' Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2012A1.txt
      • obtain Commission approval before consummating a substantial transfer of control of a domestic Section 214 authorization. Iowa Telecom did not file an application for Commission approval until December 14, 2009, more than 6 months after its July 1, 2009 transfer of control. B. Proposed Forfeiture In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2014A1.txt
      • 1, 2004, expiration date. Licensee did not file the application until August 30, 2004, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the renewal application. Licensee did not submit a response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2032A1.txt
      • KSAT-TV and WOAI-TV, the shares of total viewing hours in over-the-air homes in Victoria are far short of the required significantly viewed minimums, within one standard error, as shown in the tables below: TABLE 1 - KENS-TV VIEWING IN VICTORIA, TX Survey Households Share Standard Net Standard Year Studied Viewing Error Weekly Error Hours Circulation March 2009/ 52 0.13 0.13 1.80 1.86 May 2009 Feb. 2010/ 81 0.03 0.03 0.77 0.78 May 2010 TABLE 2 - KSAT-TV VIEWING IN VICTORIA, TX Survey Households Share Standard Net Standard Year Studied Viewing Error Weekly Error Hours Circulation March 2009/ 52 0.07 0.05 2.66 1.96 May 2009 Feb. 2010/ 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 2010 TABLE 3 - WOAI-TV VIEWING IN VICTORIA, TX
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2034A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2035A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a specific rule
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2042A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2050A1.txt
      • the scope of the biennial review. Based on its review, CGB staff does not recommend that the Commission initiate any proceeding to repeal or modify any rules as no longer in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between telecommunications service providers. Enforcement Bureau (EB) EB staff reviewed relevant rules in 47 C.F.R. Part 1 (�� 1.711-1.736, 1.80, and 1.89). The Commission did not receive any comments suggesting that it should repeal or modify any of these rules. Based on its review, EB does not recommend that the Commission initiate any proceeding to repeal or modify any rules as no longer in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between telecommunications service providers. Office of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2060A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2061A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2075A1.txt
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2076A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2077A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2078A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2079A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid compatibility requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2080A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``any omission of a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2086A1.txt
      • 158.8 46 KSNF Allegiance Communications, LLC Meade KS 37 16 28.36 N 100 20 38.42 W 178.5 29 KSAS-LP Comcast Cable Communications LLC Arbuckle CA 39 01 15.90 N 122 03 35.40 W 85.9 3 KCSO Comcast Cable Communications LLC Raton NM 36 54 32.10 N 104 28 04.80 W 88.4 24 KRDO Mediacom Communications Corp. Ajo AZ 32 22 01.80 N 112 52 45.30 W 84.3 9 KGUN Mediacom Communications Corp. Ajo AZ 32 22 01.80 N 112 52 45.30 W 94.4 32 KOLD Mediacom Communications Corp. Dubuque IA 42 30 48.00 N 090 44 44.70 W 129.2 11 KDIN Mediacom Communications Corp. Buffalo Center IA 43 22 57.90 N 093 56 29.00 W 90.3 29 WFTC Sjoberg's, Inc. Warroad
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2093A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish base forfeiture amounts for specific EEO rule violations, such as a failure to recruit widely for vacancies or to self-assess EEO performance. Accordingly, we must look to pertinent precedent involving similar violations to determine the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount here. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or downward
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2094A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish base forfeiture amounts for specific EEO rule violations, such as a failure to properly recruit widely for vacancies or to self-assess EEO performance. Accordingly, we must look to pertinent precedent involving similar violations to determine the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount here. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2097A1.txt
      • hereto as Appendix A. Consistent with this announcement, we find that the Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and the Citations issued in the proceedings identified in Appendix B to this Order should be rescinded. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 4(i) and 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and the Citations issued in the proceedings identified in Appendix B to this Order are hereby RESCINDED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to each of the entities identified in Appendix
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-212A1.txt
      • imposition of a forfeiture; (4) Licensee has taken steps to develop policies and procedures to ensure that all future filings with the Commission will be done in a timely manner; and (5) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-216A1.txt
      • a public file are reasonable, here, Community Television did not briefly delay access to the file - it denied any access, absent an appointment. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community Television apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527(c) by failing to make available Station KCET's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-223A1.txt
      • from the Commission's database. However, Licensee continued operating the Station and did not file the application until July 19, 2006, over one year after the Station's license had expired. Licensee submitted a response (``Response'') to the NAL on December 28, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-229A1.txt
      • most recent license application. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that CBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. We also find that CBC apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (2) violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-231A1.txt
      • that Media East apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at the Station WLGT main studio. We also find that Media East apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file at the time of inspection. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-232A1.txt
      • channels. Because Mr. Aversa knowingly operated on Marine Safety Channel 16 and other Marine channels, we find that the apparent violation is willful. Moreover, because agents observed Mr. Aversa's unlicensed operations on three separate occasions (all of which occurred after Mr. Aversa received multiple audio warnings from the USCG), we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-233A1.txt
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 5553 (MB 2007). Licensee admitted that it failed to place quarterly issues/programs reports in the public file from January 1997, through June 1999, and did not properly format the lists or place them in the Station's public file until mid-August, 2004. Response at 2-3. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(A), as implemented by 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(1). See also Cumulus Licensing LLC KGEE(FM), Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 4471 (MB 2008) (declining, pursuant to Section 503(b)(6)(A) of the Act, to propose a forfeiture for willful and repeated Rule violations). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 February 8, 2011 u v z { ... { �%���PNG
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-234A1.txt
      • excessive compared to proposed forfeiture amounts issued in other decisions; (2) their failure to timely file did not adversely affect the public interest; and (3) their failure to timely file the renewal application was partially due to difficulties with CDBS. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensees argue
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-235A1.txt
      • excessive compared to proposed forfeiture amounts issued in other decisions; (2) their failure to timely file did not adversely affect the public interest; and (3) their failure to timely file the renewal applications was partially due to difficulties with CDBS. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amounts proposed in these cases were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensees argue
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-236A1.txt
      • ult{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls13\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnb0\pni0\pnstrike0\pnfs22\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls13\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \tab The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s27\ql \li0\ri0\sa100\saauto1\widctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustrigh t\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 Section 1.80 of the Rules,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s27\ql \li0\ri0\sa100\saauto1\widctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustrigh t\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80. }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 and the Commission\rquote s }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \i Forfeiture Policy Statement}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 .}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s27\ql \li0\ri0\sa100\saauto1\widctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\a spalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-246A1.txt
      • device; and To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether the equipment authorization held by Shenzhen under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should be revoked. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(3)(A), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, whether a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) shall be issued against Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating sections 302(b) and 333 of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules. IT
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-248A1.txt
      • a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: ``[T]he order at issue here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority.'' Id. at 7591. See 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.txt
      • to Use ``Cell Jammers'' and Other Equipment that Blocks, Jams, or Interferes with Authorized Radio Communications in the U.S., FCC Enforcement Advisory, DA 11-250 (2011). See 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. � 2.803. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(c)-(d). See 47 U.S.C. � 302a(c); 47 C.F.R. � 2.807(d). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 w x $ $ ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x ҍ� � ��(c)���!��'' �R)&� �A�� "���\��v`` � 6� �� � � � tm tm � � � � }y6 -
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-258A1.txt
      • occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 3, and April 7, 2010, Mr. Moreno apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-263A1.txt
      • (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Foursquare Gospel for the violations listed above. Despite evidence that Foursquare Gospel received the NAL, Foursquare Gospel has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel DBA Radio Station KFSG FM, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.6(a), 17.47(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel DBA Radio Station KFSG
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-264A1.txt
      • on the structure's FAA determination of ``no hazard'' in violation of Section 17.23 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Waldec received the NAL, Waldec has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Waldec Enterprises, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.23 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Waldec Enterprises, Inc., shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to WR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-265A1.txt
      • 6, 2008. In his Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) the proposed forfeiture is inconsistent with other proposed forfeitures imposed on similarly situated licensees, and (2) he has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-266A1.txt
      • 6, 2008. In its Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) the proposed forfeiture is inconsistent with other proposed forfeitures imposed on similarly situated licensees, and (2) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-267A1.txt
      • Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''); (4) the forfeiture is unreasonable because no member of the public has made a request to see the Station's public inspection file; and (5) Licensee has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-268A1.txt
      • proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay and overall history of compliance. As evidence of financial hardship, Licensee has submitted financial statements (``Statements'') for both the Station and Licensee for calendar years 2004-2006 and the first five months of 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-273A1.txt
      • find that Utah Broadband apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating intentional radiators in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with their Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-289A1.txt
      • entities violating such agreement. We therefore conclude that the proposed forfeiture in the NAL issued to Ureach should not be imposed because it did not have a ``high degree of involvement in, or actual notice of, the unlawful activity.'' ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $9,000 issued to Ureach Technologies, Inc. in the July 17, 2008 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-292A1.txt
      • the subject conversations, without providing the required notice, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' We note that Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., the parent company of the Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-306A1.txt
      • the Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that AT&T apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-309A1.txt
      • 26, 2010, Elaine C. Rougeau, the president of Ethics, filed a ``Response to Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture'' (``Response''). In her Response, Rougeau states that payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause her financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-352A1.txt
      • public inspection file and found that it was missing nine quarterly issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WWIZ's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-365A1.txt
      • proposed amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Think 12 and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-371A1.txt
      • this NAL and Order have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to provide certain information. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of $29,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each Company listed in Appendix I of this Order is hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARANT LIABLILITY FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty nine thousand dollars ($29,000) each for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-373A1.txt
      • more than one day, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Spanish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 21241.5 MHz with an antenna azimuth of approximately 160�, a frequency and antenna azimuth not authorized in its license. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-394A1.txt
      • lights from October 1, 2009 to March 23, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KFW apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47 of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours between October 1, 2009 and March 23, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-397A1.txt
      • not file the application until July 30, 2004. In response to the NAL, BBN filed a ``Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Petition for Reconsideration'' (``Response'') on July 25, 2007 arguing that: (1) its failure to file the renewal application was not willful but unintentional; (2) the Commission improperly imposed the forfeiture for untimeliness, claiming that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form; (3) its failure to timely file the license renewal application not willful as required by Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''); (4) the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-398A1.txt
      • for the Stations' licenses. However, BBN did not file the applications until July 28, 2003. In response to the NALs, BBN filed a ``Request for Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture'' on September 2, 2004, arguing that: (1) its failure to file the renewal applications was not willful but unintentional; (2) the Commission improperly imposed the forfeitures for untimeliness, claiming that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form; (3) its failure to timely file the license renewal applications was neither willful nor repeated as required by Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''); (4) the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-399A1.txt
      • not file the application until July 1, 2005. In response to the NAL, BBN filed a ``Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Petition for Reconsideration'' (``Response'') on March 13, 2007 arguing that: (1) its failure to file the renewal application was not willful but unintentional; (2) the Commission improperly imposed the forfeiture for untimeliness, claiming that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form; (3) its failure to timely file the license renewal application not willful as required by Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''); (4) the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-408A1.txt
      • representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.1031 - 2.1060. The SecurityMan SM-302T is certified under FCC ID TW4-AT202-900M to operate between 906 - 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.209. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-409A1.txt
      • July 31, 2007 (``Response''). In its Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled due to its inability to pay and supplied federal tax returns for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-421A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nationwide Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Nationwide Telecom, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-422A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Calmtel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Calmtel USA, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-423A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Diamond Phone and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Diamond Phone Card, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-424A1.txt
      • the proposed amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise USA Teleport and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that USA Teleport, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-431A1.txt
      • than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 16, August 24 and August 31, 2010, Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-443A1.txt
      • was operating overpower on February 26, 2010, it continued its overpower operations on September 22, 2010 and September 24, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ace of Hearts apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 74.1235(e) of the Rules by operating above its authorized transmitter output power. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for the use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-449A1.txt
      • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Kacy Rankine IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of section 301 of the Act. on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rankine's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-457A1.txt
      • agents of the consequences of refusing to allow an inspection of a radio station. Based on the record evidence, we find that Ira Jones apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act and section 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to permit inspection of his CB radio station. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-458A1.txt
      • statute of limitations set forth in Section 503(b)(6) of the Act. Media Associates further asserts that, if the NAL was properly issued within the statute of limitations, the forfeiture should be reduced based on its history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-459A1.txt
      • statute of limitations set forth in Section 503(b)(6) of the Act. Schweitzer Media further asserts that, if the NAL was properly issued within the statute of limitations, the forfeiture should be reduced based on its history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-469A1.txt
      • 7591 (2002)). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.16 (``Any document to be filed with the Federal Communications Commission [must] be supported...by a written sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath or affidavit by the person making the same [or] may be supported...by the unsworn declaration, certification, verification, or statement in writing of such person [under penalty of perjury]''). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See Matter of 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Locatecell.com, 21 FCC Rcd at 8196-97 paras. 11-15. In the Matter of Toll Free Service Access Codes, CC Docket No. 95-155, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 11162, 11184-85 para. 29 (1997). Federal Communications Commission DA 11-469 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-472A1.txt
      • were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequencies 92.9 MHz, 93.7 MHz, and 104.3 MHz, on March 12, May 6, June 15, and July 23, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-475A1.txt
      • and section 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules by delivering four unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American West Advertising is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that American West is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-479A1.txt
      • By operating station WPMH780 after the license expiration date, Shubat apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Shubat also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPMH780 while continuing to operate the station beyond its license term. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-47A1.txt
      • to Premier RV Resorts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-48A1.txt
      • had failed to function properly since December 2009, and that effective repairs were not made until April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that NCBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of Station KFSD's EAS equipment. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-521A1.txt
      • evidence, that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Fox is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-523A1.txt
      • evidence, that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Access.1 is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-528A1.txt
      • a copy of this Citation shall be sent both by First Class U.S. Mail and certified mail to Universal Technologies LTD at PO Box 7316, Audubon, Pennsylvania 19407. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-531A1.txt
      • using the CDBS system. We have also addressed the University's claim that its unauthorized operation of the station was not a willful violation of the Act. We will not grant reconsideration ``to debate matters upon which the Commission has already deliberated and spoken.'' The forfeiture amount for this violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. First, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-549A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Aversa. Mr. Aversa has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Vincent E. Aversa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act and section 80.13 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mr. Aversa will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-550A1.txt
      • Jerry Russell dba Custom Cable at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-567A1.txt
      • occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 16 and June 29, 2010, Mr. Bazile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-57A1.txt
      • must meet to be considered compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes, and establish deadlines by which wireless service providers, including resellers and Mobile Virtual Network Operators, are required to offer specified numbers or percentages of handsets per air interface that comply with the relevant standard. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE of 2 FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 * � � $ $ * ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x ҍ� � ��(c)���!��'' �R)&� �A�� "���\��v`` � 6� �� * * * c c
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-587A1.txt
      • companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-5A1.txt
      • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 95.409. 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-629A1.txt
      • it was notified of the outage on July 8, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Andrews Tower apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Tower after sunset. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-630A1.txt
      • monitoring of the Tower's lights. Also, Miller did not maintain an automatic light monitoring system. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Miller apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to make observations of the Tower's lights at least once each 24 hours. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-633A1.txt
      • Harrah's took after the agents' inspection on April 8, 2010. The Commission consistently has stated that ``corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations.'' Moreover, Harrah's concedes that it had not even applied for a license until after receipt of the LOI. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a station without Commission authority and a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. Although we find no basis here for a downward adjustment given the circumstances of this case, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the total $13,000 base
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-650A1.txt
      • rules. A copy of the NAL was sent to Licensee on or about July 13, 2010, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. The Return Receipt was signed by Carol Clark on July 23, 2010. Licensee filed no response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee, as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-65A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-65A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-65A1.txt
      • 1045666 still shows the previous structure owner as the owner. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that RAMCO apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in structure ownership from January 2, 2010 until January 12, 2011. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; and (2) failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-676A1.txt
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $6,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violations of section 17.47 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KFW will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-678A1.txt
      • the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or additional facts not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. Here, Licensee presents new financial documents that purport to show an inability to pay the forfeiture. The forfeiture amount for this violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-679A1.txt
      • and location of the Children's Television Programming Reports'' as required by Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. The University further claims that its failure to comply with the public file rule was not an egregious action that merited a $9,000 base forfeiture amount. We disagree. The forfeiture amount proposed was the base amount indicated in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules for public file violations. We believe the base amount is appropriate in the circumstances presented here. The University again argues that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because paying the forfeiture amount would cause it significant financial hardship. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to inability to pay unless the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-683A1.txt
      • which a licensee was issued a $3,500 forfeiture for, among other things, public file violations. See Petracom of Joplin, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 6248 (EB 2004)(``Petracom''). With repect to Petracom, we note that the Bureau retains discretion to determine forfeiture amounts on a case-by-case basis. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4); see, e.g., Gaston College, Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 982, 986 (EB 2010) (Enforcement Bureau declines to follow Bureau precedent involving denial of access to station's public file); John Jason Bennett, Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 17193, 17195, n.14 (MB 2005) (noting that Wireless Bureau precedent is not binding on the Bureau). Towson University, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8747 (MB
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-684A1.txt
      • a licensee was issued a $3,500 forfeiture for, among other things, public file violations. See Petracom of Joplin, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 6248 (EB 2004)(``Petracom''). With respect to Petracom, we note that the Media Bureau retains discretion to determine forfeiture amounts on a case-by-case basis. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4); see, e.g., Gaston College, Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 982, 986 (EB 2010) (Enforcement Bureau declines to follow Bureau precedent involving denial of access to station's public file); John Jason Bennett, Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 17193, 17195, n.14 (MB 2005) (noting that Wireless Bureau precedent is not binding on the Bureau). Towson University, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8747 (MB
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-690A1.txt
      • its Request, Licensee states that the NAL should be cancelled or reduced because: (1) the violation was unintentional; (2) the Station did not believe it was engaging in unauthorized operation, and (3) the statute of limitations barred issuance of the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-691A1.txt
      • and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 21 FCC Rcd 8471 (MB 2006) ($10,000 forfeiture assessed for nine missing issues/programs lists); Emerson College, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 21 FCC Rcd 8488 (MB 2006)($10,000 forfeiture assessed for fifteen missing issues/programs lists). KAMJ(FM) Petition at 9; KQXF(FM) Petition at 9. Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17109, �� 51, 52 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 11-691 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-691 j t i j u � � � 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-694A1.txt
      • filed the subject Response. In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-704A1.txt
      • 17745. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached ``Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.'' 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-720A1.txt
      • employees to manage the radio station or adequately supervise Jireh's work. On April 13, 2010, the staff issued the NAL to the Trustee for unauthorized transfer of control of the Station. The Trustee did not file a response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-724A1.txt
      • Based on the facts and circumstances described above, we find that A Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to comply with the terms of the Order and Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and A Radio and issued pursuant to sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not specify a base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with a Commission order. The Commission has stated, however that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-734A1.txt
      • they did not notice the warning alert of the light outage before May 18, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CBS apparently repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act, and section 17.51(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1014523. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-742A1.txt
      • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-743A1.txt
      • was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-802A1.txt
      • of the Act and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, USAT's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, USAT SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion & Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-809A1.txt
      • WIBL's public inspection file and found that it was missing four quarters of issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Pilot Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WIBL's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because Station WIBL's public file was mostly complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-810A1.txt
      • a ``meaningful management and staff presence.'' Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mattoon Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the main studio for Stations WLBH and WLBH-FM during regular business hours. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the AM fencing rule and $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-812A1.txt
      • 333. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). An ``intentional radiator'' is a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-816A1.txt
      • we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, section 1.80, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Frandsen is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Frandsen Media Company, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-824A1.txt
      • the Rules. Mr. Smith submitted responses to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture, his prompt actions to remedy the violations, and his remorse. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Smith's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.txt
      • why no such forfeiture should be imposed. In response to the NAL, each cable operator sufficiently demonstrated that it had provided the advanced notice required under our rules. Therefore, we find that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued in the above captioned proceedings WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each counsel of record in the above captioned proceedings. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION P. Michele Ellison Chief, Enforcement Bureau Comcast
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-829A1.txt
      • was willful. Moreover, because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Alcime apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-830A1.txt
      • willful. Moreover, because the unlicensed operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Ford apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-831A1.txt
      • Because the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Morey apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 88.3 MHz in St. Petersburg, Florida. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-832A1.txt
      • on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31 and on October 6, 2010, Mr. Rhodd apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-833A1.txt
      • we find the apparent violation willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Robinson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-836A1.txt
      • occasion, we find that the violations of section 303(n) of the Act were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow inspection of radio transmission equipment on May 6, 2010, and June 15, 2010. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to allow inspection of radio equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-84A1.txt
      • of providing a backup for Bedford County 911. Hilltop further admitted that the transmitting equipment was operating and periodically transmitting digital bursts. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hilltop apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment at an unauthorized location. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-860A1.txt
      • apparent violation was willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Millwood apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-861A1.txt
      • on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 8, 9, and 10, 2010, Mr. Lindor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-870A1.txt
      • normal business hours and did not contain the station's service contour map, political file, or any issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Consolidated Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000, for public inspection file violations is $10,000 and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-871A1.txt
      • violation willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 27, 2010, Ms. Smith apparently willfully violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by Commission agents to inspect the radio installation located inside her residence while the station was in operation. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-874A1.txt
      • and June 2, 2008, and he submitted cell phone records in support of this claim. Torres also submitted his most recent three years of federal tax returns to support his request for a reduction based on an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Torres's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-876A1.txt
      • general manager also admitted that he had not been properly maintaining the antenna site. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sickafus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain two of Station WWSM's antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-881A1.txt
      • two years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Warmath apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file for Station WIRJ(AM). Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000, for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000, and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-886A1.txt
      • before us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Lazer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained and made available at the Station KSSB main studio. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-887A1.txt
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to Brown. Brown has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Robert Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Brown will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-889A1.txt
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to Morris. Morris has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Lloyd Morris IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Morris will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-890A1.txt
      • on its history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. World Media's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining World Media's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-8A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-8A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-8A1.txt
      • By operating station WPKM300 after the station's license expiration date of April 16, 2007, Call Mobile apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Call Mobile also acted in apparent violation of section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPKM300. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-900A1.txt
      • before us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available complete public inspection files for Stations KQQZ and KZQZ and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with an improper radiation pattern for the pertinent time of day is $7,000, for failure to make required measurements is $2,000, and for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-902A1.txt
      • evidence before us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available public inspection files for Stations WQQX and WQQW and willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-915A1.doc
      • to make no channels available to models of TVBDs that it determines are non-compliant with the rules, thus preventing such devices from transmitting. Willful or repeated violations of the equipment authorization, importation and marketing rules can result in forfeitures of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of continuing violation, up to a maximum of $112,500. See Section 1.80 of the FCC rules. Individuals or organizations may also be subject to criminal penalties under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. FCC field personnel, working in conjunction with the Attorney General of the United States, may seize illegal equipment. What are the certification approval requirements for sensing-only TVBDS? Sensing-only TVBDs must demonstrate with an extremely high degree of confidence that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-924A1.txt
      • C.F.R. �� 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). An ``intentional radiator'' is a ``device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(e)(4). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-926A1.txt
      • operation. Because Mr. Clarke consciously operated the station on more than one day, the apparent violation was willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Clarke apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-938A1.txt
      • $10,000 against the licensee for violation of section 73.3526 of the Rules. Media East submitted a response to the NAL denying that its public inspection file was incomplete and requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Media East's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-940A1.txt
      • 2003. Mr. Peter's admitted that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Peters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WHAW's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-941A1.txt
      • The station manager confirmed that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ms. Woofter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WVRW's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-954A1.txt
      • issues/programs lists are available in the Station KSKT-CA public inspection file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Skies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules by failing to maintain the TV issues/programs lists and make them available in Station KSKT's public inspection file. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-971A1.txt
      • $20,000 against Ms. Lubin for violation of section 301 of the Act. Ms. Lubin submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture because she claims she did not, and has not ever, operated an unlicensed radio station. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ms. Lubin's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-972A1.txt
      • of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay, history of compliance, and its good faith efforts to comply with the rules. Big Fish's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Big Fish's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-976A1.txt
      • the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. The Commission has found that the marketing of each separate unauthorized or non-compliant model constitutes a separate violation subject to the $7,000 base forfeiture amount. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation, or each
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-978A1.txt
      • without EAS equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CRS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install operational EAS equipment while the station was in operation. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-982A1.txt
      • EAS on more than one day, we find the apparent violation to be repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Comcast apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 11.35(a) and 11.51(h) of the Rules by failing to ensure that its EAS equipment was fully functional for all customers. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-984A1.txt
      • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-987A1.txt
      • are less than those of full-power stations for the same violations; (2) Licensee acted in good faith by voluntarily disclosing its failure to timely file; (3) Licensee has a history of overall compliance; and (4) the Station is unable to pay. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-98A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-98A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-98A1.txt
      • any agency thereof shall be developed, procured, or otherwise acquired, including offshore procurement, under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security.). See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-990A1.txt
      • Los Angeles Office, Bondy filed a response on August 21, 2009, arguing that he did not commit the violations, that he did not refuse to allow the inspection, and that he lacks the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-992A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-992A2.txt
      • The Matter of Applications For Consent to The Transfer of Control of Licenses, Mediaone Group, Inc., to AT&T Corp. MB RM-10763 View RM-10763edocs: RM-10763 8/11/2003 111/26/2002Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB PRM02MM View PRM02MMedocs: PRM02MM 1/8/2002 6411/27/2002Mass Media Bureau Petitions For Rulemaking Filed In 2002. MM 96-16 View 96-16 edocs: 96-16 2/14/1996 24512/6/2002Eeo Streamlining Proposals, And Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules MB 02-321 View 02-321 edocs: 02-321 10/11/2002 41/15/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB 02-349 View 02-349 edocs: 02-349 11/6/2002 31/21/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB RM-10758 View RM-10758edocs: RM-10758 7/31/2003 11/22/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB RM-10626 View RM-10626edocs: RM-10626 12/30/2002 31/24/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB 02-125 View 02-125 edocs: 02-125
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-994A1.txt
      • no such forfeiture should be imposed. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-999A1.txt
      • take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise 88 Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that 88 Telecom Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1004A1.txt
      • commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate'' the law. The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file a required form. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-107A1.txt
      • in Pompano Beach. Furthermore, the Miami Office confirmed that Mr. Dorvilus registered the domain name for www.visionfm.org, and is doing business as ``Radio VisionFM 927, Inc.'' Because Mr. Dorvilus operated this station consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-108A1.txt
      • the NAL admitting that he allowed someone to place radio equipment in his space but denying participation in the ``breaking of any law.'' Mr. Clarke also requested a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Clarke's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-109A1.txt
      • of the station's main studio approximately eight months prior to the inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Casarez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KCRX(AM) EAS equipment. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-111A1.txt
      • and on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-112A1.txt
      • the station and on more than one day, the apparent violation was both willful and repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cheriza apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-115A1.txt
      • violation was not willful, that it made a good faith effort to comply with the Rules, and that it paid a third-party radio company to program its radios to ensure no violations took place. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Cerritos Ford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-132A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-136A1.txt
      • that the station had ever maintained these items in its public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that L&R apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-154A1.txt
      • are in the best position to police the conduct of those to whom they hand calls for routing and termination, and to require that those providers in turn do the same with respect to any subsequent hand-off of calls. September 2011 NTCA Letter at 3. See 47 U.S.C. �� 312, 503. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(2). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules three times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. � 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-157A1.txt
      • the single public inspection file contained no issues/programs lists after 2001. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KM Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for Stations KQMG and KQMG-FM. E. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; (3) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-170A1.txt
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. � 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as ``any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.'' 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-173A1.txt
      • no manager was available in Morgan City on October 26, 2011. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ATVCI's apparently willfully violated Section 76.1700(b) of the Rules by failing to make its public inspection file available to the public during regular business hours. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-194A1.txt
      • one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Richards TV apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Jerusalem, Ohio. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-197A1.txt
      • and empty on two occasions. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Taylor Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station's main studio during regular business hours. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-198A1.txt
      • that it did not contain any quarterly issues/programs lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Curran apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-205A1.txt
      • stating that cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because the Station's co-owner is ill and because it operates a struggling AM radio station in a small town and payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement.10 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-211A1.txt
      • these considerations and the admission by the Companies that they failed to obtain prior Commission approval of the license transfers, we conclude that the Companies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express terms of the license, and therefore a forfeiture is warranted. B. Proposed Forfeiture In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(6) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate unauthorized
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-211A1_Rcd.pdf
      • DA 11-565, 26 FCC Rcd 4923 (IB 2011). 13See Letter from Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Acting Chief, Investigation & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to John T. Komeiji, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Hawaiian Telcom, Inc. (dated Aug. 9, 2011) (LOI). 14See LOI Response, supra n.7. 15Id. at 3-8. 1647 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(1). 1747 U.S.C. � 312(f)(1). 18H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). 19See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991). 20Id. at 4388, para. 5; Callais Cablevision, Inc.,16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para.9 (2001). 2147 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f). 1587 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-211
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-219A1.txt
      • filing deadline or the lapsed license; 2) Licensee self-reported the issue and has taken corrective measures; and 3) Licensee operated the Station as a not-for-profit entity. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or significant reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-219A1_Rcd.pdf
      • deadline or the lapsed license; 2) Licensee self-reported the issue and has taken corrective measures; and 3) Licensee operated the Station as a not-for-profit entity. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or significant reduction of the assessed forfeiture.7 III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,8Section 1.80 of the Rules,9and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement.10In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.11 5. Licensee first asserts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-237A1.txt
      • the Forfeiture Order. Accordingly, we will grant that portion of KUSI's petition that is consistent with the court's dismissal order and will dismiss as moot all other portions of the petition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154 (i), 504(b); and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 1.80(i), and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 1.80(i), the Forfeiture Order IS CANCELED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405; and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.106, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.txt
      • with the Enforcement Bureau on or before March 1 in EB Docket No. 06-36, for data pertaining to the previous calendar year. See 47 C.F.R. � 64.2009(e). See EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6928. See id. at 6953; 47 C.F.R. � 64.2009(e). EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(6). See id. � 1.16. See 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 5 U.S.C. � 504; 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart K. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 # $ l � 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� � ^��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-272A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-276A1.txt
      • Station KULF operate with full daytime power between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Based on the evidence before us, we find that JHT Ventures apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times other than those specified in its license. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-277A1.txt
      • he manually reduced power at night and forgot to do so on June 15, 2011. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Super W apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to change power/operating mode at night. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-279A1.txt
      • the evidence before us, we find that Argos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on November 18, and December 8 and 21, 2011 from two different sites in Puerto Rico. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-281A1.txt
      • required FCC Form 854 to update the Antenna Structure's ownership. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hacienda apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in ownership for the Antenna Structure. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-282A1.txt
      • Administration's Terminal Doppler Weather Radar installation serving the Kansas City International Airport, the NAL proposed a $17,000 forfeiture against Insight for violation of Section 301 of the Act. Insight submitted documentation of its finances and requested reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Insight's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.txt
      • 2009, this same market, Gainesville, had 11 LPFM stations. Table 2 Average Number of LPFM Stations in a Market by Size of the Arbitron Metro Markets Ranked by Size 2005 2007 2009 1 - 10 1.70 2.40 2.60 11 - 20 1.60 1.40 1.70 21 - 30 1.10 2.00 2.10 31 - 40 1.20 1.40 1.50 41 - 50 1.20 1.80 1.80 51 - 60 1.40 2.00 2.40 61 - 70 1.40 1.50 1.40 71 - 80 0.50 0.80 2.10 81 - 90 1.70 2.70 1.90 91 - 100 0.80 1.10 1.40 1 - 100 1.26 1.71 1.89 101 - 110 1.60 2.10 2.20 111 - 120 1.40 1.50 1.50 121 - 130 0.70 0.90 0.80 131 - 140 1.20 1.80
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-305A1.txt
      • ) ) Facility I.D. No. 31649 NAL/Acct. No. 201241420001 FRN: 0018751719 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 28, 2012 Released: March 7, 2012 By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Joseph V. Earley (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Class A television station WOIL-LP, Talladega, Alabama (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules, by failing to file with the Commission, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-338A1.txt
      • $15,000 forfeiture, asserting that ``it was not [his] intention to act against the law,'' and that he believed his transmitter was able to be used legally without a license. Mr. Lebron also asserted that he cannot afford to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lebron's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-339A1.txt
      • and on more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Darius apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-340A1.txt
      • Act and Sections 95.409 and 95.411 of the Rules. Mr. Perry submitted a response to the NAL, denying that he operated the non-certified CB transmitter and amplifiers, and requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Perry's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-341A1.txt
      • evidence before us, we find that Mr. Czura apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000; for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-348A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form and a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-349A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form and a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-350A1.txt
      • find that the violation was also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Hoosier apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain and operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of its station authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-356A1.txt
      • Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-368A1.txt
      • Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-381A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-382A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-416A1.txt
      • asserted history of providing ``high quality'' service within its service area; and it further states that if we do not do so, the proposed forfeiture amount would only serve to benefit Pacific Spanish's competitors. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Pacific Spanish's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-420A1.txt
      • law, Bailey continued impermissibly retransmitting the station's signal from January 1, 2012 until February 3, 2012. Based upon the evidence before us, and in view of the applicable law and Commission precedent, we find that Bailey apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 325 of the Act and Section 76.64 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for each violation of the cable broadcast carriage rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-421A1.txt
      • law, Bailey continued impermissibly retransmitting the station's signal from January 1, 2012 until February 3, 2012. Based upon the evidence before us, and in view of the applicable law and Commission precedent, we find that Bailey apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 325 of the Act and Section 76.64 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for each violation of the cable broadcast carriage rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-446A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Dorviuls. Mr. Dorvilus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Mercius Dorvilus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Mercius Dorvilus shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-450A1.txt
      • compliance with FCC rules and applicable authorizations. This statement must be provided to the Enforcement Bureau at the address listed in paragraph 16 within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, VPNet, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violations of Sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act and Sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty calendar days of the release date
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-475A1.txt
      • the evidence before us, we find that, on February 29, 2012, Mr. Young apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by a Commission agent to inspect the radio installation located inside his residence while the station was in operation. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-481A1.txt
      • more than $500'' based on its inability to pay. Vision Latina Broadcasting also submitted a certification that its main studio is now staffed consistent with the rules and that the station's public inspection file is complete and available to the public. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Vision Latina Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-485A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form and a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-488A1.txt
      • the NAL. In its Response, South Bay does not dispute the facts presented in the NAL, but asks that the proposed forfeiture be reduced based on South Bay's inability to pay the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining South Bay's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-522A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Cheriza. Mr. Cheriza has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robens Cheriza IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Robens Cheriza shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-524A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Thermitus. Mr. Thermitus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robenson Thermitus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Robenson Thermitus shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-527A1.txt
      • Philadelphia Office's conclusion that it operated Station WEXC's STL on an unauthorized frequency. In addition, Beacon requests a cancellation or reduction on the ground that payment of a forfeiture would pose a financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Beacon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-528A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form and a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-533A1.txt
      • at least April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Telava apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure after sunset. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-535A1.txt
      • be made ``as soon as practicable,'' Telava has failed to comply with that requirement. Accordingly, we find that Telava willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with Section 17.56(a) of the Rules by failing to repair the Antenna Structure's light outage as soon as practicable. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-536A1.txt
      • on December 20, 2010. In its Response, Dollar requests that we reduce the proposed forfeiture because the violation was ``an unintentional mistake,'' which Dollar readily admitted, and because Dollar cooperated fully in the investigation. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Dollar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-53A1.txt
      • amount for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for ``[e]gregious misconduct,'' or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an ``[i]ntentional violation'' or ``[r]epeated or continuous violation.'' Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-546A1.txt
      • an agent observed Station WOIR operate its station with daytime power of 5000 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ERJ Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-54A1.txt
      • that the Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Classic Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-55A1.txt
      • that the Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that James Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.txt
      • impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Response Card Marketing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-563A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-564A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-56A1.txt
      • Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mobile Phone of Texas, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-570A1.txt
      • repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Alexander Kissi IS DENIED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-576A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for EEO violations such as a failure to self-assess EEO performance, place required information on a website, or perform adequate EEO recruitment. However, they do establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required information and of $10,000 for failure to comply with the public inspection file
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-57A1.txt
      • interference to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Air Traffic Control frequency, the NAL proposed a $12,000 forfeiture against Power for violation of section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules. Power submitted a response to the NAL, requesting a reduction due to ``financial hardship.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Power's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-590A1.txt
      • clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Princess K Fishing Corporation IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Princess K Fishing Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for violations of section 80.89(a) of the Rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Princess K shall also send electronic notification to WR-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-592A1.txt
      • notice of apparent liability for forfeiture for a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage). 144 ADMA Telecom, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4152, 4153�54, para. 5 (2011) (ADMA Telecom); see also Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, para. 9; So. Cal. Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387�88, para. 5. 145 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f). 146 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002) (SBC). Federal Communications Commission DA 12-592 19 A. Failure to Respond to Commission Orders 42. It is well established that a Commission licensee's failure to respond to an LOI from the Bureau violates a Commission order.147 Such violations do not always entail a party's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-597A1.txt
      • �V/m at 3 meters in the Honey Grove cable system, which translates into a CLI of 67.717. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Cebridge apparently willfully violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules by operating the Honey Grove cable system with excessive signal leakage. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. Cable signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-59A1.txt
      • WPLY's engineer and sales manager both admitted to the agents that Nassau Broadcasting has never maintained a public inspection file for Station WPLY at its main studio. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Nassau Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating the station in direct contravention of the terms of its station authorization is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-608A1.txt
      • responsible for maintaining public file material from the period of time prior to the Station's current ownership, and because the amount of the proposed forfeiture improperly exceeds the forfeiture amounts imposed in similar circumstances.'' III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mapleton's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-60A1.txt
      • consciously operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find that Mr. Thermitus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-616A1.txt
      • area that consistently receives fewer than six stations; (2) any violation of the Rules was inadvertent and resulted from his lack of experience with making technical filings required by the Commission; and (3) he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The Bureau assessed the forfeiture in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, the record of compliance, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. White argues the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-623A1.txt
      • has a long history of compliance with the rules and a record of public service. It also alleges financial hardship. Finally, South Seas argues that it is a victim of ``selective enforcement of the rules.'' discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-625A1.txt
      • the violation dates are barred by the statute of limitations; that it has a history of compliance; and that it is unable to pay the forfeiture. We discuss below each of these arguments in turn. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ace's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-631A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-632A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-63A1.txt
      • from the Commission for this device or any wireless handheld remote controllers. Based on the evidence before us, we find that US Jetting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 15.201(b) of the Rules by marketing and selling unauthorized radio frequency devices. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-64A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-64A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-64A1.txt
      • not by the Licensee's selection, which undermines the complainant's charges of manipulation. Thus, we are persuaded that no rigging occurred in this instance. Based upon the evidence before us, and in view of the applicable law and Commission precedent, we find that Clear Channel apparently willfully violated section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for each violation of section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-657A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-658A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-659A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-65A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-65A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-65A1.txt
      • the Commission's rules constitutes a continuing violation. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides that any person that willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation by a common carrier, up to a statutory maximum for continuing violations of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-660A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-674A1.txt
      • because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, (2) imposition of a forfeiture is barred by the statute of limitations, and (3) Licensee has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-675A1.txt
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bethany College (``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVBC(FM), Bethany, West Virginia (``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Licensee apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3539 and 73.1740 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and by discontinuing operation of the Station without authority. Based upon our review
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-679A1.txt
      • the Atlanta Office informed the FAA of the lighting outages on Towers 2 and 4, and NOTAMs for those structures were issued on February 10, 2012. 47 U.S.C. � 303(q). 47 C.F.R. � 17.51(a). 47 C.F.R. � 17.47. 47 C.F.R. � 17.48. 47 C.F.R. � 17.50. 47 C.F.R. � 17.57. See 47 U.S.C. � 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. � 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. � 510. See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-684A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Taylor Broadcasting. Taylor Broadcasting has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Taylor Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Taylor Broadcasting Company shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-685A1.txt
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to R.J. R.J. has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, R.J.'s Late Night Entertainment Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b)(2), and 73.3527(b)(1) of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. R.J.'s Late Night Entertainment Corporation shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-695A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-702A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to KM Radio. KM Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, KM Radio of Independence, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 11.35, 17.51, 73.1560(b), and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. KM Radio of Independence, LLC shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-750A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Upper Peninsula. Upper Peninsula has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Upper Peninsula Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violations of Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Upper Peninsula Communications, Inc. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-751A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-752A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-755A1.txt
      • owner of antenna structure number 1214169. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify immediately the Commission of a change in ownership information for the Antenna Structure. C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and failing to file required forms or information is 3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-758A1.txt
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-769A1.txt
      • Office) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Casarez. Casarez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rosendo Casarez, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Rosendo Casarez,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-772A1.txt
      • and that had it done so, the Licensee would have ceased broadcasting such announcements and its violation would not have been so aggravated. The Licensee also asserts that the forfeiture is excessive in light of its good faith efforts. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-778A1.txt
      • cited any Commission precedent suggesting that its actions in this case were excusable, and we find none. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nassau apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Rules by recording the conversation described in the foregoing without first providing the required notice to the complainant. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture for the unauthorized broadcast or recording of a telephone conversation is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-789A1.txt
      • Denver Office inspection showed this operation was ongoing for several years. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mount Rushmore apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KZMX-FM in accordance with the terms of the station's authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of the main studio rule is $7,000, the base forfeiture for failing to make a station available for inspection is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-78A1.txt
      • accordance with the rules applicable to its particular radio service, in apparent violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. On February 10, 2010, Gila submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Gila's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-792A1.txt
      • misplaced due to changes in management. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Empire apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the Stations' issues/programs lists and make them available in the Stations' public inspection files. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating of the public file rules is $10,000 for each radio station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-800A1.txt
      • extended period of time. The agents also observed that there was no perimeter fence surrounding the property. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WOYK apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the Antenna Structure within an effective locked fence. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an AM fencing violation is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-822A1.txt
      • (2) the staff improperly distinguished Telemedia Broadcasting, Inc.; (3) the cases cited in the NAL do not support its determination regarding supplemental coverage showings; (4) after reviewing Licensee's supplemental showings, Commission staff ultimately found that the main studio relocation was Rule-compliant; and (5) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the Commission's main studio rule. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-831A1.txt
      • inspection on June 22, 2011, one of the previous owners, Cohanzick Broadcasting Corporation, was still listed as the owner on the antenna structure registration. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Quinn apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000 and for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-83A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Cernogg. Mr. Cernogg has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Willis Cernogg, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Willis Cernogg, Jr. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-845A1.txt
      • 158.8 46 KSNF Allegiance Communications, LLC Meade KS 37 16 28.36 N 100 20 38.42 W 178.5 29 KSAS-LP Comcast Cable Communications LLC Arbuckle CA 39 01 15.90 N 122 03 35.40 W 85.9 3 KCSO Comcast Cable Communications LLC Raton NM 36 54 32.10 N 104 28 04.80 W 88.4 24 KRDO Mediacom Communications Corp. Ajo AZ 32 22 01.80 N 112 52 45.30 W 84.3 9 KGUN Mediacom Communications Corp. Ajo AZ 32 22 01.80 N 112 52 45.30 W 94.4 32 KOLD Mediacom Communications Corp. Dubuque IA 42 30 48.00 N 090 44 44.70 W 129.2 11 KDIN Mediacom Communications Corp. Buffalo Center IA 43 22 57.90 N 093 56 29.00 W 90.3 29 WFTC Sjoberg's, Inc. Warroad
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-846A1.txt
      • lists for the current license term. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(12) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-872A1.txt
      • the battery in the transmitter's control unit had died, which resulted in the transmitter not shutting down at sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Townsquare apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times not specified in its license. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-874A1.txt
      • that Martin Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure from sunset until sunrise and to monitor the Antenna Structure's lights as required. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-875A1.txt
      • of these frequencies under its license for Station WQFC968 or under any other license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Aramark apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on unauthorized frequencies. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-876A1.txt
      • and/or otherwise was involved in the general conduct or management of the unauthorized station and did so on more than one day. Therefore, we find that Mr. Rivas apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-888A1.txt
      • and on more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Knighten apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-889A1.txt
      • reports that it is now in compliance with Section 73.1350(a), stating that the ``automation equipment used to transition WIPC from daytime to nighttime operations has been repaired and is functioning properly at the present time.'' DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Super W's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-901A1.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to Mr. Young. Mr. Young has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Arthur Lee Young IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. with any questions regarding payment procedures. Arthur Lee Young shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-920A1.txt
      • strength, indicating that Station WNLA-AM was operating with its daytime power of 500 watts at night. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Debut Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limits. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with antenna structure prescribed lighting is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-924A1.txt
      • to the Omnibus NAL. DISCUSSION Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules requires telecommunications carriers, such as Jahan, to file annually before March 1 a CPNI compliance certification signed by an officer of the carrier. We find that Jahan failed to comply with this Commission rule for calendar years 2008 and 2009. Under Section 503(b) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the Commission may assess a forfeiture against a common carrier of up to $150,000 for each violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. The Commission may assess this penalty if it determines that the carrier's noncompliance is willful or repeated. For a violation to be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-927A1.txt
      • after 6 p.m. EST, which is the local sunset time during the month of October. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within the terms of the Station's authorization. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limit is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-929A1.txt
      • forfeiture. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Robert Brown IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Robert Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Robert Brown at his address of record.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-930A1.txt
      • forfeiture. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Lloyd Morris IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Lloyd Morris IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by both first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Lloyd Morris at his address of record.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-931A1.txt
      • material factual information was intentional in violation of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by providing material factual information that was incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and not misleading. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for broadcasters such as Vision Latina, the base forfeiture is $37,500 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-933A1.txt
      • file for Station KBPO during regular business hours and found the file did not contain any issues-programs listings. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-939A1.txt
      • All of these facts indicate that Mr. Jean consciously operated and/or otherwise was involved in the general conduct or management of the unlicensed station. Therefore, we find that Mr. Jean apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-940A1.txt
      • investigations without further expenditure of public resources. Nothing on the record in this case, including A Radio's ability to pay claim, warrants any leniency or mitigation of the proposed forfeiture amount. We have examined the NAL Response pursuant to the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Considering the entire record and the statutory factors listed above, we find that A Radio is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, A
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-986A1.txt
      • when the school is not required to operate its station under Section 73.561(a). Additionally, Licensee states that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Late-Filed Application.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-989A1.txt
      • term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for EEO violations such as a failure to perform adequate recruitment or self-assess EEO performance. Accordingly, we must look to pertinent precedent involving similar violations to determine the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount here. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or downward by considering the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210971A1.txt
      • �534(b)(9)(``A cable operator shall provide written notice to a local commercial television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or repositioning that station. No deletion or repositioning of a local commercial television station shall occur during a period in which major television ratings services measure the size of audiences of local television stations.'' See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f). News media Information 202 / 418-0500 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20554 This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974). NEWS
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
      • Total 1995-1999 Alabama $2,668 $2,946 $3,205 $3,394 $674 $3,037 $3,712 1.38% 39.1% Alaska 464 518 561 590 130 534 664 0.25 43.2 Arizona 2,842 3,249 3,667 3,958 875 3,485 4,359 1.62 53.4 Arkansas 1,534 1,719 1,885 2,005 449 1,854 2,303 0.86 50.1 California 22,379 25,100 27,236 28,692 5,793 23,591 29,384 10.94 31.3 Colorado 3,128 3,526 4,006 4,260 909 3,917 4,826 1.80 54.3 Connecticut 2,765 2,943 3,266 3,173 616 2,789 3,405 1.27 23.1 Delaware 492 567 627 685 131 657 788 0.29 60.1 District of Columbia 886 955 1,049 1,085 285 1,297 1,581 0.59 78.4 Florida 11,582 12,972 14,161 15,042 3,459 13,763 17,223 6.41 48.7 Georgia 5,335 6,004 6,849 7,469 1,597 6,882 8,479 3.16 58.9 Guam NA 85 97 103 18 81
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220888A1.txt
      • 36 mHz frequency modulation video carrier with associated audio and ATIS subcarriers with an emission designator of 36M0G8W. 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G8W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E020071 SES-LIC-20020328-00433 New Skies Networks, Inc. Application for Authority Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service 38 � 47 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: Bristow 8000 Gainsford Ct, Prince William, Bristow, VA 77 � 34 ' 23.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: Vertex RSI 13 Meter 13 meters ANTENNA ID: KPK Standard Video 10950.0000 - 11200.0000 MHz 36M0F3F Standard Video 11450.0000 - 11700.0000 MHz 36M0F3F Standard Video 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0F3F Page 4 of 16 BPSK, QPSK, 8PSK, 16QAM,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222556A1.txt
      • 2002, the Commission's Miami, Florida, Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $17,000 to CTI for the noted violations. CTI has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, CTI IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act and repeatedly and willfully violating Section 302a (b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226838A10.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226838A10.txt
      • divided by the total number of hours or prime time programming. This determines the average number of program types during prime time. Perfect imitation would equal one while perfect diversity would equal three (p. 404). 22 Horizontal Diversity Index 2.722.78 2.822.82 2.68 2.84 2.602.58 2.50 2.412.452.36 2.27 2.452.45 2.23 2.14 2.50 2.32 2.43 2.68 2.52 2.88 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year Diversity Indes Diversity Index This index tells a slightly different story than the other two. In the early time period, the fluctuations in horizontal diversity reflect the fluctuations in diversity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228204A1.txt
      • 1 - New Skies 803 - (338.5 E.L.) 1 -New Skies 806 - (319.5 E.L.) SES-mD-20021023-01847 P KA262 Application for Modification Class of station: Fixed Earth Stations Comsat CorporationICOMSAT World Systems Nature of Service: lntemational Fixed Satellite Service "MOD" to add new emission designators and related service SITE ID: 1 LOCATION: 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 39 o 13' 1.80 w N LAT. 77" 16'11.40"WLONG. ANTENNA ID: CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters VERTEX 15.2 KPC 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz ROOKFXD 82.00 dBW TX&M 5925.0000-6425.0000 MHz 60MOGlD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5850.0000-5925.0000 MHz 60MOG 1D 84.10 dBW Tl-C&M 3700.0000-4200.0000 MHz SOOKFXD lTC&M 3625.0000-4200.0000 MHz 60MOGlD TTC&M 5925.0000-6425.0000 MHz 8 1 K9G7W 46.00 dBW DlGlTAL DATA 5925.0000-6425.0000 MHz 164KG7W 51.20dBW DlGlTAL DATA 5925.0000-6425.0000 MHz
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228584A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228584A3.txt
      • 0.42 0.79 Top 30 as % of all International Points 89.9% 96.3% 98.9% 95.5% 96.5% Regional Total 1 Western Europe 92,161 843,304 67,720 1,003,185 1,972,285 0.10 0.10 0.27 0.46 2 Africa 3,294 10,268 0 13,562 1,257 0.32 0.80 0.64 1.79 3 Middle East 3,481 14,896 150 18,527 873 0.23 0.25 0.32 0.80 4 Caribbean 9,996 8,738 0 18,734 11,893 1.14 1.80 2.14 4.53 5 North and Central America 214,624 469,207 19,937 703,768 672,205 0.44 0.35 0.81 1.15 6 South America 12,404 44,384 19,053 75,841 108,177 0.20 0.19 0.36 0.85 7 Asia 33,735 392,079 22,035 447,849 289,436 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.67 8 Oceania 8,851 51,077 52,915 112,843 53,450 0.09 0.11 0.17 0.73 9 Eastern Europe 5,094 4,705 0 9,799 1,393 1.08 1.10
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-229609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-229609A1.txt
      • INTELSAT AOR - (335.5 E.L.) 1 - INTELSAT AOR - (342.0 E.L.) 1 - New Skies 803 - (338.5 E.L.) 1 - New Skies 806 - (319.5 E.L.) Application for Modification 03/31/1999 - 03/31/2009 Date Effective: 12/12/2002 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority INTELSAT LLC KA262 SES-MOD-20021023-01847P Nature of Service:International Fixed Satellite Service 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 84.10 dBW TTC&M 5850.0000 - 5925.0000 MHz 60M0G1D TTC&M 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 800KFXD
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230319A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q �� |�����
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230468A1.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230590A1.txt
      • relationship at the time the call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ; < = > � � > ? -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230905A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231108A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231326A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231533A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�'
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231691A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232254A1.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232462A1.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232799A1.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232806A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 $ # $ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�'
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233048A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 < ; < -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�'
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233250A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233265A1.txt
      • (342.0 E.L.) 1 - New Skies 806 - (319.5 E.L.) Page 5 of 11 1 - NSS-5 - (183 E.L.) Application for Modification Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Intelsat LLC KA262 SES-MOD-20030402-00454P Nature of Service:International Fixed Satellite Service Modification filed to add new emissions at EIRP densities equal to or less than those already licensed. 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 46.00 dBW DIGITAL DATA 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 81K9G7W 51.20 dBW DIGITAL DATA 5925.0000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233437A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h h h P Q � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233655A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " � h-? ��`��gd-? -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�(
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234202A1.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234315A1.txt
      • U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(e). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234693A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q �� |�����
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234850A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235091A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � (R) " � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�(
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235265A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! 4 5 J K ! " 4 J K _ g -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235497A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235727A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q �� |�����
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235941A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236317A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236526A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236857A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237113A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " - ; < = > N O P { � , < = P Q f g -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237311A1.txt
      • is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237312A1.txt
      • is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT . / h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�(
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237313A1.txt
      • is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT i j -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�'
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237314A1.txt
      • is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h` hT -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237315A1.txt
      • is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT @ A -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�'
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237333A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237556A1.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237585A1.txt
      • - INTELSAT AOR - (342.0 E.L.) 1 - New Skies 806 - (319.5 E.L.) 1 - NSS-7 - (338.5 E.L.) Page 6 of 32 Intelsat LLC KA262 SES-MOD-20030402-00454P Date Effective: 08/12/2003 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 03/31/1999 - 03/31/2009 Application for Modification Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 84.10 dBW TTC&M 5850.0000 - 5925.0000 MHz 60M0G1D TTC&M 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 800KFXD
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237586A1.pdf
      • 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.4(a), 17.48(a) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to register his tower with the Commission, failing to notify the FAA of improperly functioning tower lights, and failing to repaint the tower as often as necessary in order to maintain good visibility to air navigation. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for prescribed lighting and painting at ten thousand dollars ($10,000), and for failure to file required forms at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237589A1.pdf
      • 1999 and on March 18, 2000 for violation of Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. However, Statcom has not taken effective measures to avoid causing harmful co-channel interference to stations WPBV410 and WPDU414. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Statcom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for causing harmful interference at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237590A1.pdf
      • who willfully and repeatedly fails to comply with the terms and conditions of his license or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based on the above evidence, we find that Morradio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1690(b), 73.3538(a)(4) and 11.35(a) of the Commission's rules. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $4,000 for the construction and operation at an unauthorized location and $8,000 for the failure to have EAS equipment installed. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237591A1.pdf
      • willfully and repeatedly fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based on the above evidence, we find that Skywave willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Act, Sections 302 and 2.907 of the Commission's rules. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $7,000 for the manufacture and distribution of non-compliance Part 15 devices. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237594A1.pdf
      • be registered with the Commission prior to July 1, 1998. Based on the evidence before us, we find that La Favorita willfully violated Sections 1.89(b) and 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to respond to a Notice of Violation and failing to register the antenna structure for radio station WAOS. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to reply to a Notice of Violation at four thousand dollars ($4000) and for failure to file required forms at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237596A1.pdf
      • � 503(b)(1), provides that any person who willfully and repeatedly fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based on the above evidence, we find that Morrison did willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Act.. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $2,000 for the marketing of non-compliance Part 15 devices. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237597A1.pdf
      • File No. 99-HU-039 Licensee of Amateur Radio Station N5WLY ) Houston, TX ) NAL/Acct.No. X3254-001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Released: January 13, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau, Houston Office: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, against Robert L. Meyers (``Meyers''), licensee of Amateur Radio Station N5WLY, Houston, Texas. We find that Meyers operated his Amateur Radio station so as to willfully and maliciously cause interference to radio communications in apparent willful violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules, and transmitted unidentified communications in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237600A1.pdf
      • File No. 99-HU-077 Licensee of Amateur Radio Station K4TOF ) Houston, TX ) NAL/Acct.No. X3254-002 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Released: January 13, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau, Houston Office: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, against Paul E. Holcombe (``Holcombe''), licensee of Amateur Radio Station K4TOF, Houston, Texas. We find that Holcombe operated his Amateur Radio station so as to willfully and maliciously cause interference to radio communications in apparent willful violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules, and transmitted unidentified communications in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237601A1.pdf
      • operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. We also find that on March 15 and October 26, 1999, Leonard D. Martin repeatedly and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow an inspection of his radio station upon reasonable request by an authorized Commission representative. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $10,000 for unlicensed operation and $7000 for failure to allow inspection. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237602A1.pdf
      • dated in calendar year 1993. The FCC named this as one of the violations's specified in the NOV issued to Bronco on April 1, 1999. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bronco willfully and/or repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.61(a), 73.62(b)(3) and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records pertaining the reasons why EAS tests are not being received is $1,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required field intensity measurements as often as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237603A1.pdf
      • radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 8, 2000, Nextel Communications, Inc., willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237604A1.pdf
      • radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 16, 2000, Nextel Communications, Inc., willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237605A1.pdf
      • radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 13, 2000, Nextel Communications, Inc., willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237606A1.pdf
      • Inc., Radio Station WINV(AM) Inverness, FL, DA 00-897 (EB April 21, 2000) ($7000 forfeiture assessed for, among other things, violation of 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3526). 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Church Point willfully and/or repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a)(2), 73.49, and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structures (failure to file required forms) is $3,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective antenna tower fence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237607A1.pdf
      • vessel TOMCAT. In addition, this warning letter included a listing of properly authorized frequencies for use by ship and private coast stations. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 10, 2000, GNOTS willfully violated Section 80.373(f) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on a frequency that was not authorized. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures, the base forfeiture amount for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237610A1.pdf
      • Augustine, Florida 32084 ) Case No. 99TP114 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 4, 2000 Released: January 4, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Tampa District Office INTRODUCTION This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for monetary forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, to Betty's Communications Companies, Inc., licensee of AM Broadcast Station WKLN, for willful and repeated violation of the Terms of Station Authorization for operating at night without authorization and Section 73.1560(a)(1), of the Rules 47 C.F.R.� 73.560(a)(1) for using a power level in excess of its authorized power. The appropriate amount of forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237611A1.pdf
      • Orlando, FL 32805 ) Case No. 99TP335 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 24, 2000 Released: January 24, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Tampa District Office INTRODUCTION This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for monetary forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, to Mr. Jean R. Jonassaint for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act for operating a broadcast station without a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2. The appropriate amount of forfeiture for this violation is determined to be $11,000.00. BACKGROUND On March 24, 1999, the FCC Tampa
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237612A1.pdf
      • effective fencing around their antenna. We reject the statement of Reier Broadcasting Company, Inc., that the fencing was substantial. The rules clearly state that the antenna must be enclosed and a visual inspection indicated that a major portion of the fence was lying on the ground. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, which both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew the requirement of the Commission's rule, but did not take corrective action
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237638A1.pdf
      • in willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Additionally, we find that Pilgrim failed to maintain the required management and staff presence at station KWYD from July 15, 2001, to August 22, 2001, in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture is $8,000 for not having operational EAS equipment in violation of Section 11.35, $4,000 for exceeding power limits at nighttime in violation of Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules; and $7,000 for failing to maintain the required main studio
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237639A1.pdf
      • codes at least once a week at random days and times. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arnold Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61 of the Commission's Rules by failing to receive and transmit the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000 and for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's Rules requiring the monitoring, receipt and transmission of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237640A1.pdf
      • excessive radio frequency radiation exposure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pilgrim, licensee of station KDMN, failed to enclose the AM transmission system with an effective locked fence or other enclosure in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),5 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,6 for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237641A1.pdf
      • station KJQN, Simmons failed to comply with the terms of station K264AC's license and improperly extended the 1 mV/m contour of station KJQN. Based on the evidence, we find that Simmons willfully and repeatedly violated Section 74.1232(d) of the Rules by extending the 1 mV/m contour of FM station KJQN. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, do not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the terms and conditions of the license by extending the 1 mV/m contour of a FM primary radio station. Therefore we must determine an appropriate amount for this violation. Similar operational parameters such
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237642A1.pdf
      • to the volume of unpainted cabling attached to the face of the structure. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Crown willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 by failing to paint the cabling mounted to the exterior face of the antenna structure. 5. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237645A1.pdf
      • stations are set forth under Subpart G of Part 74 of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Echonet repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a television translator broadcast station without a valid license for over 4 years. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237646A1.pdf
      • . Based on the evidence before us, we find that Woodland willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 74.551(a)(2), 74.551(a)(3) and 74.561 of the Commission's Rules by failing to operate the STL transmitter on the authorized frequency and failing to operate the STL at the authorized location. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237647A1.pdf
      • the public inspection file be maintained at the main studio of the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Trade Center Management, Inc., willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain the required public inspection file at the KHRA main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237648A1.pdf
      • of the antenna structure that may exceed the Commission's maximum permissible exposure guidelines. Effective base fencing is thus important to prevent possible contact with the radiating structure and excessive radio frequency radiation exposure. Failure to properly maintain required antenna structure marking and failure to properly maintain effective base fencing may result in imposition of a monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules. Capstar must respond in writing with a statement of corrective action taken, or to be taken, to ensure ASR number 1018351 is in full compliance with the antenna structure marking and base fencing Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237649A1.pdf
      • of the required material, including commercial records for children's programming, proof of performance test data, signal leakage logs and repair records, and records of attributable interests in video programming. Based on the evidence before us, we find that TWC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1700(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain the required public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237650A1.pdf
      • of the change in ownership. On January 3, 2003, Entravision filed the required updated ownership information for the structure with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Entravision failed to immediately notify the Commission of the change in ownership of the structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237652A1.pdf
      • not conduct the weekly review of the station's log. Based on the evidence, we find that HBC willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to comply with EAS testing and logging requirements. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237654A1.pdf
      • repair EAS equipment. Based on the evidence, we find that Meeker willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational at the time of inspection on November 14, 2002, and for more than two months prior to the inspection date. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237655A1.pdf
      • authorized and issued an authorization letter accordingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Global operated radio transmitting equipment on unauthorized frequencies of 88.98, 104.1 and 106.9 MHz on January 26, 2003 in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 74.103 of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized use of a frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237657A1.pdf
      • repeatedly violated Sections 11.35, 11.61, and 73.1125 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly operational, failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests and failing to ascertain the cause of and log EAS equipment failures, and failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to maintain a main studio is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237658A1.pdf
      • and times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WJOL did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237659A1.pdf
      • and times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WBVS did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237660A1.pdf
      • Culpeper, VA ) NAL/Acct. No. X3234001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 7, 2000 Released: February 7, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Columbia Office I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for monetary forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules"), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, to Culpeper Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of WCVA, Culpeper, Virginia for willful violation of Sections 73.49 and 73.1560(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.49, failure to maintain effective locked fence around the base of each antenna having radio frequency potential at the base, and � 73.1560(a), failure to maintain power
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237662A1.pdf
      • Manual, letters and comments from the public, and the Issues and Programs Lists. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Metropolitan willfully violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the station's main studio and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237663A1.pdf
      • current ownership report, requests from candidates for political office, and the Issues/Programs Lists. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Greenwood willfully violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing its antenna tower, and failing to maintain all required material in its public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations concerning AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237664A1.pdf
      • 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Victory Ministries willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.49, and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower, and failing to have the station's public inspection file available for inspection during regular business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237666A1.pdf
      • Section 11.35(b) of the Rules. Station management was unaware as to when the station had last conducted an EAS test. No station personnel were able to conduct an EAS test. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pearson willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237668A1.pdf
      • structure's height exceeds 200 feet. On October 9 and 10, 2002, Best Country did not have their antenna structure in Bogalusa, Louisiana registered with the Commission. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Best Country willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237669A1.pdf
      • 2002, there was no fence around the base of the antenna tower and the outer fence surrounding the field afforded many unrestricted access points. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Forrester willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of the antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237670A1.pdf
      • had malfunctioned. In addition, there were no entries in the station's log to indicate any problem or malfunction of the EAS equipment as required by Section 11.35(b) of the Rules. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Chatterbox willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237671A1.pdf
      • for several days up to and including February 10, 2003, PGA Tour operated station WPSE606 on frequency 469.175 MHz with an unauthorized emission, caused interference to another licensee and failed to use a station identifier in willful and repeated violation of Sections 1.903(a), 90.403(e) and 90.425(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for operating with an unauthorized emission is $4,000, for causing interference is $7,000 and for failing to operate without a station identifier is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237672A1.pdf
      • repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 11.61 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment operational, by failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests, and by failing to ascertain why the required tests were not conducted and failing to log any EAS equipment failures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237673A1.pdf
      • with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2002 Mountain Union failed to post the ASR number for the tower number 1014930, and failed to timely notify the Commission of the change in ownership of the structure in willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.57 of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number is $2,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237674A1.pdf
      • and excessive radio frequency radiation exposure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 21, 2002, Radio Bonners Ferry, Inc., willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around their antenna structure. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules, for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237675A1.pdf
      • using a power amplifier and that use of a power amplifier voids authority to operate the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Spiry willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a station without a proper license. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237676A1.pdf
      • must be made available for inspection upon request by an authorized FCC representative. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Woods willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426 (CB Rule 26) of the Rules by refusing to allow inspection. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237677A1.pdf
      • FTP failed to reduce KNTB's daytime operating power at sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 5 and 6, 2002, FTP repeatedly violated Section 73.1745 of the Commission's Rules when it operated station KNTB with full power after local sunset in contravention of its station authorization. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for exceeding power limits. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237678A1.pdf
      • necessary to ensure compliance with the Rule. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Butterfield Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of station KULE (AM), Ephrata, Washington, willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain a copy of KULE's current authorization in the public inspection file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violating the public file rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237679A1.pdf
      • ) Shelbyville, Indiana ) NAL/Acct. No. X3232-001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 8, 2000 Released: February 8, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Chicago Office I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful and repeated failure to maintain effective locked fences around the base of each antenna having radio frequency potential at the base. We conclude that ARS Broadcasting Corp. is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000). II. BACKGROUND 2. ARS Broadcasting Corp. is the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237680A1.pdf
      • and times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WLLI-FM did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237681A1.pdf
      • and times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WJTW did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237706A1.pdf
      • operation. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Autry willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to reduce power at sunset and then discontinue operation after the post-sunset authority. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237707A1.pdf
      • Ross willfully violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, failing to register their antenna structure, and failing to have all required documents in the station's public inspection file available for inspection at any time during regular business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237709A1.pdf
      • 200%. Based on the evidence before us, we find 4M willfully violated Sections 73.49 and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to maintain effective locked fencing and by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. In addition, 4M willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by exceeding nighttime power limits. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked fencing is $7,000; for failing to comply with prescribed marking is $10,000; and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237710A1.pdf
      • when painting is required. HCI's structure required painting, but from March 19, 1999 to August 20, 2002, HCI failed to repaint it to maintain good visibility. Based on the evidence before us, we find HCI willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237711A1.pdf
      • of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.\'94 47 U.S.C. \'a7 312(f)(2).}}}{\fs21\expnd0\expndtw-2\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 violated Section}{ \fs21\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 301 of the Act }{\fs21\expnd0\expndtw-2\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\tx0{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\hyphpar0\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs21\expnd0\expndtw-2\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 \par {\pntext\pard\plain\fs22\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 7.\tab}}\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sl240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\tx0\jclisttab\tx1080{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls4\pnrnot0\pndec\pnb0\pni0\pnfs22\pnstart1\pnindent720 \pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}\hyphpar0\faauto\ls4\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs21\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,}{\cs18\fs21\super\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlcont\ilvl0\ls0\pnrnot0\pndec }\hyphpar0\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs22\expndtw-2\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\fs16\super\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 \chftn }{\fs18\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(b)(4). }}}{\fs21\insrsid926246\charrsid4488524 the base forfeiture amount for operating a statio n without a license is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237712A1.pdf
      • to transmit its official station identification, identifying only as ``...93.7, the Coast....'' Based on the evidence before us, we find Commonwealth willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WEXM during normal business hours and by failing to transmit an official station identification. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000, and failing to transmit the required station identification is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237713A1.pdf
      • failed to transmit its official station identification, identifying only as ``...96X....'' Based on the evidence before us, we find Sinclair willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WROX during normal business hours and by failing to transmit an official station identification. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000, and for failing to transmit the required station identification is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237714A1.pdf
      • find NRVRP willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.50 and 73.49 of the Rules. Specifically, we find NRVRP apparently liable for failing to maintain the operational readiness of its EAS equipment, for failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structures and for failing to maintain effective locked fencing around all of its energized AM antenna towers. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain the operational readiness of its EAS equipment is $8,000; the amount for failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structures is $10,000, and the amount for failing to maintain effective fencing around its energized AM antenna towers is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237715A1.pdf
      • is responsible for the structure's marking and lighting. On September 10 and 11, 2002, Three Angels' antenna structure was not painted. Based on the evidence before us, we find Three Angels willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission and by failing to mark (paint) the structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to mark an antenna structure is $10,000, and for failure to register an antenna structure is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237716A1.pdf
      • had the red top beacon and three of its sidelights dark. The owner had made no report of the light outage to the FAA. Based on the evidence before us, we find Jorge L Estrada willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all required red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237717A1.pdf
      • feet in height above ground level. From at least December 30, 1996, until March 7, 2003, Clamor failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find Clamor Broadcasting Network Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (failure to register an antenna structure with the Commission) is three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237718A1.pdf
      • On August 7, 2002, agents found the fence completely down around the base of the antenna structure, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find WCVC, Inc., willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237719A1.pdf
      • structure 1233515 in accordance with its registration requirements. M/A had made no report of the light outage to the FAA. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 6 and August 7, 2002, M/A willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1233515. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237720A1.pdf
      • structure 1233515 in accordance with its registration requirements. M/A had made no report of the light outage to the FAA. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 6 and August 7, 2002, M/A willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1233515. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237721A1.pdf
      • On July 26, 2002, C. Elton Crews, Inc. failed to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on structure #1204823 in accordance with its registration requirements. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find C. Elton Crews, Inc. willfully violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required tower lights on its antenna structure #1204823. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237722A1.pdf
      • found unlocked. Based on the evidence before us, we find Westshore willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51, 17.57, and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to: display all red obstruction tower lighting from sunset to sunrise, update tower ownership information on the antenna structure registration, and provide an effective locked fence around the base of the antenna. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this Notice are: $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed tower painting and marking; $3,000 for failure to notify the Commission of a change in tower ownership (failure to file required forms or information); and $7,000 for AM tower fencing. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237723A1.pdf
      • license. On August 8, 2002, Ian R Walker operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 95.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 8, 2002, Ian R Walker willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237724A1.pdf
      • had been operating the unlicensed station for at least three months prior to that date. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 16, 2002, and for at least three months prior to this date, Assondieu Fortune repeatedly and willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237725A1.pdf
      • Act and with a license. On July 16, 2002, Jhony Desinor operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 105.9 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 16, 2002, Jhony Desinor willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237727A1.pdf
      • one-half mile from the structure, resulting in poor visibility of the structures' obstruction markings. Based on the evidence before us, we find Cumulus willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint its antenna structures to maintain good visibility in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structures #1052722 and #1052724. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure markings is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237728A1.pdf
      • 64. On March 5, 2003, Northland's cable system in Sandersville and Tennille, Georgia operated with a CLI value of 68.9. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 5, 2003, Northland Cable Properties VII, LP willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237729A1.pdf
      • FAA because the structure exceeded 200 feet in height. Therefore, Charter's antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least April 16 through May 8, 2003, Charter failed to register this antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find Charter willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237730A1.pdf
      • least December 16, 1996 through September 12, 2002, B&H owned an antenna structure that required notice to the FAA, and thus required Commission registration, yet B&H failed to register the structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find B&H willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237731A1.pdf
      • Act and with a license. On August 6, 2002, Gabriel Dorcely operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 103.9 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 6, 2002, Gabriel Dorcely willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237732A1.pdf
      • Florida. In addition, WELE failed to immediately notify the FAA of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find WELE willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on antenna structure 1062835 in Ormond Beach, Florida. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237733A1.pdf
      • within 15 minutes of receipt by broadcast stations. Radio Station WWAB, Inc. failed to conduct required monthly EAS tests between March and July, 2002. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Radio Station WWAB, Inc. repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 6. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237734A1.pdf
      • with a license. On September 11, 2002, Timothy J. Massett operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 11, 2002, Timothy J. Massett willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237735A1.pdf
      • 12, 2002, Pamal failed to notify the Commission of a change in ownership of its antenna structure #1054493. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pamal Broadcasting Ltd. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of its antenna structure #1054493. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g. failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237736A1.pdf
      • ASR, and FCC rules. On August 21, 2002, cables attached to the structure obstructed the paint over the entire height of the structure, resulting in poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ashley willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237737A1.pdf
      • except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On October 30, 2002, Mr. Brown operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 95.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Brown willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237738A1.pdf
      • with a license. On October 23, 2002, Patrick S. Green operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 100.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on October 23, 2002, Patrick S. Green willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237739A1.pdf
      • except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On December 6, 2002, Daniel Clephar operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 92.7 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Clephar willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237740A1.pdf
      • a license. On November 23, 2002, Mr. Tori Javier Lipscomb operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 100.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 23, 2002, Tori Javier Lipscomb willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237742A1.pdf
      • AM antenna tower was not enclosed within an effective locked fence, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the structure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Power Country, Inc., willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of its AM antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237743A1.pdf
      • Mr. Donald Donovan Jackson operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 102.1 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 23, 2002 and January 15, 2003, Donald Donovan Jackson willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237744A1.pdf
      • and with a license. On October 30, 2002, Lovelock operated radio transmitting equipment at its business, the Rum Runner Caribbean Restaurant & Lounge, on the frequency 95.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Lovelock willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237745A1.pdf
      • requests to do so. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 4, 2003, Alexandre Pierre Abelard aka Abelard Pierre willfully violated Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license and by failing to allow an inspection of his radio installation upon request by authorized Commission representatives. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000, and for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237746A1.pdf
      • not have at least one top mounted red flashing (L-864) obstruction light installed. The agents observed two single small red lights mounted on top of the structure. Based on the evidence, we find that Unocal willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.23 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number and maintain prescribed lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting requirements is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules, does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237747A1.pdf
      • of unpainted cabling attached to two faces of the structure. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Verizon willfully and repeatedly violated sections 17.23 and 17.50 by failing to paint the cabling and conduit mounted to the exterior faces of the tower. 6. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237754A1.pdf
      • tower was found unlocked. Based on the evidence before us, we find East Texas Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules and willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure and failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around the base of the antenna. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this Notice are: $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) and $7,000 for AM tower fencing. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237755A1.pdf
      • Mr. Marshall failed to maintain good visibility of his antenna structure number 1220001 located in Nacogdoches, Texas. Based on the evidence before us, we find Martin D. Marshall willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237756A1.pdf
      • and therefore Commission registration, because its height exceeds 200 feet. For at least one year up through January 30, 2003, Ramsey failed to register its antenna supporting structure with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find Ramsey willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237757A1.pdf
      • the base of the tower. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Renaissance Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment, failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting, and failing to provide an effective locked fence around the base of the radiating antenna tower. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment is $8,000, for failure to comply with prescribed tower obstruction lighting is $10,000, and for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237758A1.pdf
      • station records contained no entries of EAS tests, activations or reasons for failures to conduct such tests during this period. Based on the evidence before us, we find Petracom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operational from at least October 16, 2002, until January 30, 2003. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237759A1.pdf
      • the paint was dark and dull so that the bands were difficult to distinguish at approximately � of a mile, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find Leon's Radio willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237761A1.pdf
      • contained no entries explaining why the tests were not conducted or that the EAS equipment had been taken out of service for repair. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mediacom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment from January, 2002 until September 12, 2002. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237762A1.pdf
      • 2002 election even though the station manager stated that the station had aired political advertising. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KLNG willfully violated Sections 11.61(a) and 73.3526(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules by failing to conduct required EAS tests and failing to maintain copies of requests for political advertising in the public file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000 per violation. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine what an appropriate forfeiture amount should be for this violation. The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237763A1.pdf
      • to immediately notify the FAA of the light outage after being informed of the outage on September 10, 2002. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Sedalia Smiles willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting from at least September 10, 2002, until September 17, 2002. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237764A1.pdf
      • between sunset and sunrise. In addition, AAT failed to monitor the condition of its antenna structure's lights, and failed to notify the FAA of the improper functioning of these lights. Based on the evidence before us, we find AAT Communications Corporations willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237765A1.pdf
      • issues/programs lists even though the station had been owned by Petracom for at least two years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Petracom willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly EAS tests and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237766A1.pdf
      • paint and causing the structure to have an overall dark appearance. As a result of the black cabling, the structure was not clearly visible. Based on the evidence before us, we find SBA Towers, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint its antenna structure as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237767A1.pdf
      • carriers. These transmissions occurred during ongoing transmissions by other authorized amateur radio stations, resulting in interference to those transmissions. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Kamm willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 97.101(d), 97.113(a)(4) and 97.119(a) of the Rules by causing intentional interference, broadcasting music and failing to identify with his station call sign. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for intentional interference is $7,000. The base forfeiture amount for failure to identify a station is $1,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's amateur radio rules regarding transmission of music. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The rule that amateur stations
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237768A1.pdf
      • systems or taking the steps necessary to properly maintain these systems prior to FCC notification. Based on the evidence before us, we find PCI willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise during the period of November 11-15, 2002, and on December 3, 2002. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000.00. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237769A1.pdf
      • of the KCTE station authorization and Sections 73.1745(a) and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by operating on November 14, 15 & 16, 2002 with power and at times of operation not authorized by the KCTE station authorization, and by failing to make the public inspection files of both KCTE and WHB available to the public and the FCC. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000 and for public file violations the base forfeiture is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237770A1.pdf
      • structure obscuring the structure's paint. As a result of the faded paint and black cabling, the structure exhibited poor visibility. Based on the evidence before us, we find AAT Communications Corporation willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1005728. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237771A1.pdf
      • least January 2000 to January 23, 2003, The Helicon Group L.P. failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find The Helicon Group L.P. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission from January 2000 until January, 2003. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237772A1.pdf
      • January 12, 2003, January 13, 2003, January 28, 2003, and January 29, 2003. Based on the evidence before us, we find Johnson willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules and the terms of the KLEY station authorization by failing to reduce power to 1 watt during nighttime operation of station KLEY on seven separate dates. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for overpower operation is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237773A1.pdf
      • to receive and conduct such tests, and no entries showing EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair. Based on the evidence before us, we find that from at least April 26, 2002 to January 30, 2003, Charter willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct the required monthly EAS tests. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required EAS tests (i.e., failure to make require measurements or conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237775A1.pdf
      • 2002, one of WMLT's antenna towers was not enclosed within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 27, 2002, State Broadcasting Corporation willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around their antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237776A1.pdf
      • license. WMTN operated with daytime power on July 30 and July 31, 2002 during nighttime hours until 11:00 pm EDT. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 30 and 31, 2002, Horne Radio, LLC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to reduce power at sunset. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for failing to reduce power (exceeding power limits) is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237777A1.pdf
      • Group's antenna structure had deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to air navigation due to the poor visibility of the tower. Based on the evidence before us, we find Fun Media Group, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237778A1.pdf
      • at or below 64. On October 30, 2002, STC's cable system in Cornersville, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 68.7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on October 30, 2002, Small Town Communications Partners I LP willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237779A1.pdf
      • lighting and also failed to provide an acceptable method of monitoring the condition of the lights. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Barnacle Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on antenna structure 1063961 in Port Royal, South Carolina. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237781A1.pdf
      • 2002, no medium intensity obstruction lighting was observed operating on Business Cell's antenna structure #1216842. Business Cell had not notified the FAA of the light outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find Business Cell willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237782A1.pdf
      • antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least September 25, 2001 to October 29, 2002, CB Radio's antenna structure used as part of Station WBEJ(AM) was not registered with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find CB Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237783A1.pdf
      • The operator on duty at the station stated that the fence had been in that condition for quite some time. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Casey Network, LLC, willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing the base of its antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237784A1.pdf
      • Commission registration. As of April 16, 2003, Palmetto had failed to register its antenna structure used as part of station WAIM. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Palmetto willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61(a) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to conduct required EAS tests and by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information to register the antenna structure is $3,000, and for failure to conduct EAS tests (i.e., failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237785A1.pdf
      • 12, 2003, the Wanda Doonan Trust failed to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find the Wanda Doonan Trust willfullyand repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237788A1.pdf
      • the stations' staff stated they had received numerous cards and letters during that time period. Based on the evidence before us, we find Clinton Radio Company willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to make available all required contents of the public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 for non-operational EAS equipment, and $10,000 for violation of public inspection file rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237789A1.pdf
      • quarters of the year 2002 were not available in the pubic file at the time of inspection. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 30, 2003, Lebanon willfully violated Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to make available during regular business hours the complete public inspection file for station KTTK. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for violation of the public file rules. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237790A1.pdf
      • Alliance Communications Partners, LP failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Alliance Communications Partners, LP willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237791A1.pdf
      • regular business hours on March 18, 2003, station employees could not produce the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cornell willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(b)(2) of the Rules and willfully violated Section 73.3527(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain transmitter control and failing to make available the station's public file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000, and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237792A1.pdf
      • callsign WPPB501. Based on the evidence before us, we find Air Paging Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 90.403(f), and 90.425(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its Wireless Radio Station in accordance with the rules applicable to that service, continuously radiating an unmodulated carrier, and failing to identify its station by the assigned callsign. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for operation at an unauthorized location, $4,000 for unauthorized emissions, and $1,000 for failure to provide station identification. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237794A1.pdf
      • the structure's lighting. On August 28 and 29, 2002, Entergy failed to exhibit the top red obstruction lighting on its antenna structure number 1020649. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Entergy willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit the prescribed tower lighting on antenna structure number 1020649. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237820A1.pdf
      • times the station is in operation. At the time of inspection, Floyd County Broadcasting failed to have Emergency Alert System equipment installed and operating. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Floyd County Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) by failing to install and maintain operational EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for EAS equipment not installed or operational. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237821A1.pdf
      • that CenturyTel has willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, as amended, by failure to maintain the prescribed illumination of its antenna tower; Section 17.48(a) for failing to report the tower light outage to the FAA; and Section 17.51(b) for failing to continuously exhibit medium or high intensity lighting. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking; and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information. In accessing the monetary
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237822A1.pdf
      • 73.1225(d)(1), and 73.1870(b)(3) for failure to maintain required records; Section 73.1350(c)(1) for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring regarding operating power and AM mode of operation; and Sections 73.1560(a)(1) and 73.1745 for operating with power in excess of 105% of the authorized power during daytime and nighttime operation. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications, $1,000 for failing to maintain required records, $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring, and $4,000 for exceeding power
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237824A1.pdf
      • to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring regarding EAS monitoring sources, EAS tests, and observation of the antenna structure's lights; Sections 17.4(a) for failure to file required forms or information regarding the registration of the two antenna structures; and Section 17.51(a) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $1,000 for failing to maintain required records, $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring, $3,000 each (two towers) for failure to file required forms or information for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237825A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Sauer willfully and repeatedly violated Section 97.101(d) for an amateur radio operator willfully or maliciously causing interference to radio communications; Section 97.113(a)(4) for transmitting music from his amateur radio station and Section 97.119(a) for failure to transmit the station identification of his amateur station. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for causing interference, $4,000 for transmitting unauthorized emissions and, $1,000 for failure to provide station identification. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237826A1.pdf
      • Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11102. Based on the evidence before us, we find that All American Citywide Rainbow Transit, Inc. operated radio transmitting equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 155.265 MHz on July 8, 2002 and July 16, 2002, in willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237827A1.pdf
      • 45 mobile units on a frequency of 35.80 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Acapulco Car Service, Inc. operated mobile units on July 9, 2002, and July 10, 2002, on an unauthorized frequency of 36.50 MHz, in willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237828A1.pdf
      • Act and with a license granted under the provisions of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 1, July 3, and July 9, 2002, International Car Service, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without a license. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237829A1.pdf
      • on a frequency of 31.90 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, New Eastern Car & Limo Service, operated radio transmitting equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 31.90 MHz on August 20, 2002 and August 21, 2002, in willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237830A1.pdf
      • International Airport, Newark, NJ. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, ServisAir, operated a repeater station on 461.050 MHz and portable radio transmitting equipment on 466.050 MHz on August 23, 2002, August 26, 2002, and August 28, 2002, in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237831A1.pdf
      • station on the frequency 151.245 MHz in Paterson, NJ. Based on the evidence before us, we find that J Transport, Inc. operated radio transmission equipment on 151.245 MHz on August 15, 2002 and August 16, 2002 without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237832A1.pdf
      • a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequency 467.250 MHz in Jersey City, NJ. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Ridge operated radio transmission equipment on 467.250 MHz on August 28, 2002 without a Commission authorization in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237833A1.pdf
      • failed to conduct the required monthly EAS tests from March 3, 2002 to July 3, 2002, and failed to maintain station records of required weekly and monthly EAS tests received from April 13, 2002 to July 3, 2002, in willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.61(a)(1)(iii) and 11.61(b) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring of EAS tests at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237834A1.pdf
      • frequency of 31.70 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Mexicana Car and Limousine Services operated radio transmitting equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 31.70 MHz on September 20, 2002, October 2, 2002 and October 8, 2002, in willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237835A1.pdf
      • on October 5, October 8, and October 12, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequency, 96.7 MHz, in Brooklyn, NY. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237836A1.pdf
      • 95.1 MHz, in Bronx, NY. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Fernando Alejandro was responsible for the operation of radio transmission equipment on 95.1 MHz on September 20, 2002, and October 12, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237837A1.pdf
      • 29 and 30, 2002, no obstruction lighting was observed on Crown Castle's antenna structure #1037111. Crown Castle had not notified the FAA of the light outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find Crown Castle willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237838A1.pdf
      • boards had rotted through and collapsed. The station manager stated that the fence had been in that condition for quite some time. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Radio Centre, Inc., willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing the base of its antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237839A1.pdf
      • of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting and failed to inspect the structure's lighting system for proper operation. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MCC Georgia LLC repeatedly and willfully violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237841A1.pdf
      • 87.9 MHz in Brooklyn, NY. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Emmanuel Frederic was responsible for the operation of radio transmitting equipment on 89.7 MHz on November 1, 2002, and on 87.9 MHz on December 6, 2002, in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237842A1.pdf
      • Attention Signal, Test Script and EOM codes for the months of June 2002 and August 2002, and by failing to log entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of May 5, 2002 to May 18, 2002, and August 4, 2002 to August 24, 2002. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237843A1.pdf
      • weeks of August 4-10, 2002, September 8-14, 2002, September 15-21, 2002, September 22-28, 2002, and October 13-19, 2002, and log entries of reasons why required monthly and weekly EAS tests were not received for the month of August 2002, and for the weeks of August 4-10, 2002, and October 20-26, 2002. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237844A1.pdf
      • months of August 2002, September 2002, and October 2002, and log entries of reasons why required monthly and weekly EAS tests were not received for the months of August 2002, September 2002, and October 2002, for the week of September 1-7, 2002, and from September 15, 2002 to October 12, 2002. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237845A1.pdf
      • from July 1 to September 7, 2002, and September 15-21, 2002, and by failing to log entries indicating reasons why required monthly EAS tests were not received for the months of July 2002 and August, 2002, and weekly EAS tests were not received from July 1, 2002 to September 14, 2002. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237846A1.pdf
      • operated radio transmission equipment on 91.9 MHz on November 26, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequency, 91.9 MHz, in Elizabeth, NJ. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237847A1.pdf
      • MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Church operated a base station on an unauthorized frequency of 36.08 MHz, and mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 36.12 MHz on January 23, 2003 and January 24, 2003, in willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237848A1.pdf
      • header and EOM codes for the weeks of November 10-23, 2002, December 15, 2002-January 4, 2003, and January 12-25, 2003, and failing to log entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of November 10-23, 2002, December 15, 2002-January 4, 2003, and January 12-25, 2003. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237849A1.pdf
      • NY. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hip Hop was responsible for the operation of radio transmission equipment on 1710 kHz on January 9, 10, 29, and 30, 2003, and February 27, 2003, without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237850A1.pdf
      • Agents observed the base station operating on 151.605 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Joslyn Gordon operated a base station on an unauthorized frequency of 151.605 MHz on April 2, April 3, and April 9, 2003, in willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237851A1.pdf
      • of 151.805 MHz. Agents observed mobile units operating on 151.635 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Fransisco Peralta operated mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 151.635 MHz on May 1, 2003 and May 2, 2003, in willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237852A1.pdf
      • this part. On August 15, 2002 and August 28, 2002, Tekk operated a transmitter on the frequency 464.375 MHz at the unauthorized location of 1277 Sykes Lane, Williamstown, New Jersey. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tekk Comm Communications willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station at an unauthorized location at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237853A1.pdf
      • on the frequency 462.200 MHz. Horizon also agreed to take corrective actions to transmit the call sign identification on the radio transmitting equipment of Lower Eastside Car Service and Eastland Car Service. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Horizon willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for Horizon' operation of each station at an unauthorized location at $4,000 and for its failure to transmit the call sign identification on each station at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237854A1.pdf
      • station authorization. On April 26, 2002 and July 8, 2002, Minority Business operated WYGG with an antenna height that exceeded the station's authorized antenna height by 29.9 meters. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Minority Business apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and operate EAS equipment at $8,000, and for exceeding the authorized antenna height at $5000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237855A1.pdf
      • lobe of the transmitting antenna will be a term of the station authorization. Between March 17, 1998 and October 15, 2002, BLCI operated aural broadcast auxiliary station WHS405 at an unauthorized location. Based on the evidence before us, we find that BLCI willfully and repeatedly violated Section 74.532(e) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operating a station at an unauthorized location at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237856A1.pdf
      • the Parkview House, 700 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island, New York. The license for station WPTM988 authorizes NYRS to operate a radio transmitter on the frequency 452.000 MHz at 1633 Broadway, New York. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NYRS willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237857A1.pdf
      • a.m., and on October 3, 2002 between 7:20 p.m. and 7:45 p.m., Urban Radio of Pennsylvania, LLC., failed to exhibit the red obstruction lighting on the WURP antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Urban willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.47(a)(1), 17.48(a), and 17.51(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, for failure to file required forms or information at $3,000, and for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237858A1.pdf
      • Plus Corp. stated in response to a follow-up letter to them that Statcom was not authorized to relocate their transmitter from the licensed location of Todt Hill in Staten Island, New York. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Statcom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation of each radio system at an unauthorized location at $4,000 and for operation on an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237859A1.pdf
      • by the Commission under the provisions of this part. On January 14, 2003, Dominic DeNaples operated radio communications equipment on the unauthorized frequency 154.515 MHz, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dominic DeNaples willfully violated Sections 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture for operating on an unauthorized frequency at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237860A1.pdf
      • 14, 2002 and July 16, 2002, between August 4, 2002 and August 17, 2002, between October 13, 2002 and October 26, 2002, between November 17, 2002 and December 3, 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pentecostal willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237872A1.pdf
      • the inspection, the tower paint was faded and oxidized such that it failed to provide good visibility. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 14, 2002, Gold Coast willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules. Gold Coast failed to clean or repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237873A1.pdf
      • either visually or by observing an automatic properly maintained indicator designed to register any failure of such lights; by failing to report the flashing obstruction lighting outage to the FAA, and by failing to update the antenna tower registration to reflect the change in ownership. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000, for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000, and for failure to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237874A1.pdf
      • service.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 12, 2002, Rotijefco willfully violated Section 11.35 of the Commission's Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operation for over 60 days and failing to log EAS equipment malfunctions and repairs. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),9 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,10 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,11 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237875A1.pdf
      • 12, 2002, Pacific willfully violated Section 11.61 of the Commission's Rules by failing to monitor the LP1 and LP2 stations as designated in the EAS Local Area Plan for Santa Barbara County and failing to receive or retransmit the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,11 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring the monitoring, receipt and retransmission of the required monthly and weekly EAS tests from the designated
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237876A1.pdf
      • systems are in operation." Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 13, 2002, Smith willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to have EAS equipment operational at station KEYT(AM) so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,9 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,10 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237877A1.pdf
      • by Sutro Corporation c/o John H. Runkle requires registration, yet is unregistered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sutro Corporation c/o John H. Runkle willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register the antenna structure. 8. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, for failure to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237878A1.pdf
      • and by failing to conduct the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. We further find that station KZUA failed to conduct its responsibilities as a designated second local primary station to coordinate the carriage of common emergency messages, provide a local EAS monitoring source, and transmit monthly EAS tests. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement),12 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,13 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237879A1.pdf
      • January 30, 2002, Mr. William Wayne willfully violated Section 301 of the Act2 and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules3, by failing to obtain prior Commission approval to operate paging station WNGS721 at a new location, known as the Island Inn Hotel, 1300 W. McCulloch Blvd., Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for constructing and operating a radio station at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237880A1.pdf
      • us, we find that Blue Skies Broadcasting Corp., willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61, and 73.1125(c) of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed and operational and failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests, and by failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for not maintaining a main studio is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237881A1.pdf
      • logs explaining why the EAS tests were not received, or any indication that the station's chief operator or other personnel attempted to identify the source of any problem with the EAS equipment. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WEMG willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237882A1.pdf
      • the coordinates of the tower as approximately N 45 27 41, W 98 20 15. No tower registration exists at or near those coordinates that match the physical description of the tower. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Northern willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register the tower. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237883A1.pdf
      • FCC on the WDOG broadcast station license. Therefore, Good Radio's antenna structure required Commission registration. As of September 19, 2002, Good Radio failed to register its antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find Good Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237884A1.pdf
      • until October 1, 2002, WAXO's antenna tower was not enclosed within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Marshall County Radio Corp. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around its antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237886A1.pdf
      • 200 feet in height.2 Therefore, NRS's antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least April 7, 1999, to November 4, 2002, NRS failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find NRS willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237887A1.pdf
      • between sunset and sunrise. In addition, Gresham failed to notify the FAA of the light outage. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gresham willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission and failing to exhibit required antenna structure lighting. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this NAL are $3,000 for failure to register an antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237888A1.pdf
      • height. Yet Piedmont Radio Co. failed to register the structure. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Piedmont Radio Co. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WPID(AM) during normal business hours and failing to register its antenna structure. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000 and failing to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237889A1.pdf
      • or that EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair. Based on the evidence before us, we find Small Town Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49 and 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of the station's antenna tower and by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of the antenna structure is $7,000 and for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237890A1.pdf
      • numbers. Verizon acquired ownership of these two towers on February 8, 2002, yet, as of July 31, 2002, Verizon had failed to notify the Commission of the change in ownership. Based on the evidence before us, we find Verizon willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to report changes in antenna structure ownership. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000 for each violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237891A1.pdf
      • structure's previous owner. Therefore, Georgia Transmission's antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least July 24 to September 24, 2002, Georgia Transmission failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find Georgia Transmission willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237903A1.pdf
      • to establish monitoring procedures to insure compliance with the authorized operating power and AM mode of operation. In addition, we find Clarke willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain proper operating power and mode of operation. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and for failure to provide adequate transmitter control is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237904A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Suh violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR numbers at the antenna structures for both station KSUH and station KWYZ, and failing to maintain good visibility of the KSUH antenna structure. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting or marking (painting) is $10,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237905A1.pdf
      • inspection file was being maintained at the station's Portland, Maine office. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FNX willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125, and 73.3526(b) of the rules by failing to staff the main studio, and failing to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for failure to staff the main studio, and the base amount at $10,000 for failure to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237906A1.pdf
      • inspection file was being maintained at the station's Portland, Maine office. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FNX willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125, and 73.3526(b) of the rules by failing to staff the main studio, and failing to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for failure to staff the main studio, and the base amount at $10,000 for failure to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237907A1.pdf
      • antenna towers were not enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 20, 2002, Mega willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around all their antenna structures. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') ,,sets the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations at $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237908A1.pdf
      • the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Great Northern Radio L.L.C. failed to maintain the required management and staff presence at the main studio of WVAY during normal business hours on November 20 and 21, 2002 in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237909A1.pdf
      • as part of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations are in operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RLP willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the rules by failing to have an operational EAS system. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $8000 for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237910A1.pdf
      • required tests or notifications. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 10, 2002, Arrow Communications of N.Y. Inc. willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment, and failure to determine the cause of failure to receive required EAS tests or notifications. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment installed at $8000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237911A1.pdf
      • the time of inspection, CCB's tower paint visibility had deteriorated over time to the point of being a hazard to air navigation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CCB willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the rules by failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237913A1.pdf
      • FAA to discontinue painting and lighting specifications shown on their authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tennessee Gas willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to properly register their tower, and by failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information, and at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237914A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that NCR willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a), 17.4(g), and 17.50 of the rules by failing to properly register the tower, failing to post the ASR number at the base of the antenna, and failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules does not establish a base
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237915A1.pdf
      • the Rules specifies that antenna structures assigned painting or lighting requirements prior to July 1, 1996, were to have been registered prior to July 1, 1998. Meade did not register their structure until after receiving the NOV. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237916A1.pdf
      • repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. At the time of the inspection, WQRK's antenna structure's paint was severely faded and the bands of paint were not distinguishable, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237917A1.pdf
      • Rules specifies that antenna structures must be cleaned and repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. At the time of the inspection, Taylor's antenna structure was severely faded, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237918A1.pdf
      • bare metal exposed. Section 17.57 requires the owner of a Registered Antenna Structure to immediately notify the Commission of any change in ownership information. At the time of inspection, the tower was registered to a previous owner. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237919A1.pdf
      • before us, we find that Grass Roots willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17(4)(a), 17.50, and 73,1125(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, by failing to paint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility, and by failing to equip and staff a main studio. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amounts at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information (e.g. failure to register the antenna structure), $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking, and $7,000 for violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237920A1.pdf
      • to conduct weekly EAS tests during the period June18, 2002 to August 13, 2002, and Sections 17.4, 73.49 and 73,3526(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, failing to enclose the antenna structure in an effective locked fence and failing to provide access to the public inspection file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amounts at $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring (e.g. failure to conduct weekly EAS tests), $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information (e.g. failure to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237936A1.txt
      • is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT d e f g -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ���
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237957A1.pdf
      • obscuring the structure's paint. As a result of the faded paint and black cabling, the structure was not clearly visible. Based on the evidence before us, we find KN Telecommunications, Inc. willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1016749. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237958A1.pdf
      • light outage. In addition, Southwestern Bell Wireless, LLC failed to inspect its antenna structure lights and associated control equipment in that the structure's automatic alarm system failed. Based on the evidence before us, we find Southwestern Bell Wireless, LLC willfully violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit all required medium intensity obstruction lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237959A1.pdf
      • with its antenna structure registration and FAA requirements. Additionally, Wichita had not filed a report of a light outage on this structure with the FAA. Based on the evidence before us, we find Wichita SMSA Tower Holdings, LLC willfully violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required tower lights on its antenna structure 1032091. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237960A1.pdf
      • the height of at least 320 feet, yet no lighting had been installed on the structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find US Cellular willfully violated Sections 17.21 and 17.45 of the Rules by failing to light or paint its antenna structure and failing to install temporary warning lights on its antenna structure during construction. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237961A1.pdf
      • hours per day in violation of the terms of the station authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that New World willfully violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1400 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available, and failing to monitor and control the transmission system. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the transmission control and metering requirements is $3,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237962A1.pdf
      • failing to establish monitoring procedures to ensure compliance with authorized operating power, mode of operation and AM directional system parameters. In addition, King willfully and repeatedly violated 73.1560 of the Commission's Rules by exceeding nighttime power levels and operating with an improper mode of operation. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000; for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000; for exceeding power limits is $4,000; and for failure to comply with transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237963A1.pdf
      • areas outside the principal community to be served. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 20, 2000, Millcreek willfully violated Section 74.1251 of the Rules by failing to operate KUUU-FM1 in accordance with the technical parameters of the booster station's authorization. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules, for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, for use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000, for exceeding authorized antenna height is $5,000, for exceeding power limits is $4,000. Application of the base amount to the noted violations results in a total
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237964A1.pdf
      • of KXDC. Based on the evidence before us, we find that High Peaks operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and exceeded authorized power in willful violation of Section 74.1235(c) of the Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules, for unlicensed radio operation is $10,000 and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. Application of the base amount to the two instances of unlicensed operations and the violation of the technical parameters of the station's authorization results in a total base forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237965A1.pdf
      • stations KSOS and KXOL, willfully violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio in accordance with the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61 and 73.1820(a)(1)(iii) of the Rules by failing to conduct and properly log required EAS tests. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 for failure to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000 and for failure to maintain required records is $1,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Rules requiring timely retransmission of the RMT and RWT
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237966A1.pdf
      • of the authorized TPO." AGM operated the transmitter for KYLZ-FM1 at 127% of the authorized TPO. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AGM willfully violated Section 74.1235(e) of the Commission's Rules by failing to operate the KYLZ-FM1 within the authorized TPO limits. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,7 for operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000, and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In this particular case, the forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is assessed for both STLs. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount is $12,000. In
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237967A1.pdf
      • monitoring procedures to ensure compliance with authorized operating power, mode of operation and AM directional system parameters. In addition, we find that Ramh willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1560 of the Rules by exceeding nighttime power levels and operating with an improper mode of operation. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, for violation of the main studio rules is $7,000, for exceeding power limits is $4,000, and for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237968A1.pdf
      • and repeatedly violated Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Commission's Rules by failing to retransmit the EAS monthly test. In addition, we find that the KPOI-FM EAS encoder was functionally inoperative at the time of inspection on April 3, 2002, as it was initially unable to generate an over-the-air EAS test. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring timely retransmission of the monthly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237969A1.pdf
      • the licensing and operation of trunked SMR stations are set forth under Subpart S of Part 90 of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nextel willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a station without a proper license. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237970A1.pdf
      • of receipt by broadcast stations in an EAS Local Area or State. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 1, 2002, August 1, 2002, and September 1, 2002, Ho'ona'auao willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules by failing to retransmit the EAS RMT. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring timely retransmission of the monthly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237971A1.pdf
      • the acting chief operator on a temporary basis, and failing to review the station records at least once each week to determine if required entries are being made and verify that the station has been operated as required by the rules or the station authorization. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), for failure to comply with the main studio rule is $7,000, for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and for failure to maintain required records is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237972A1.pdf
      • of the Rules by failing to exhibit the prescribed antenna structure lighting, failing to properly maintain an operating automatic alarm system to indicate when the structure lighting is not operating, and failing to notify the FCC of the change in ownership of the antenna structure. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules, for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237973A1.pdf
      • prior to November 13, 2002, and November 14, 2002 of his responsibility to properly measure, adjust and maintain his broadcast station to avoid subsequent violations of Section 301 of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clay apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237974A1.pdf
      • months of December 2002 and January 2003, by failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from December 2002 to January 2003, and by failing to maintain the required records by verifying that the station has been operating as required, by the chief operator in writing. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and for failure to maintain the required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237975A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that JMK willfully violated Sections 1.89, 73.49, and 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence, failing to enclose the antenna structure in an effective locked fence, and failing to have a meaningful staff and management presence at the main studio. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amounts at $4,000 for failure to reply to Commission correspondence, $7,000 for failure to enclose the antenna in an effective locked fence, and $7,000 for failure to have a meaningful management and staff
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238008A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Emmis willfully violated Section 17.47(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to provide a properly maintained automatic alarm system for its antenna structure lighting, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission using FCC Form 854 of a change in antenna structure ownership. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to properly maintain an automatic alarm system for antenna structure lighting is $2,000 (failure to conduct required monitoring), and for failure to notify the Commission of a change in antenna structure ownership is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238009A1.pdf
      • place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure. The antenna structure was observed on May 15, 2002, and no ASR number was posted. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 15, 2002, Moffatt willfully violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238010A1.pdf
      • day. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find MariTEL Mississippi River, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.5 and 80.90 of the Rules by failing to insure that Commission correspondence sent to the address provided by the licensee is delivered to the licensee, and failing to suspend transmissions immediately upon detecting a malfunctioning transmitter. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an accurate mailing address for the Commission's use (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000, and failure to immediately suspend transmitter operations (unauthorized emission) is $4,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238011A1.pdf
      • 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed and operational at KAKJ, by failing to register KAKJ's antenna structure with the Commission, and by failing to operate in accordance with the terms of the station authorization as the KAKJ transmitter site and antenna structure were not at the licensed geographical coordinates. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register its antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238012A1.pdf
      • lists. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 21, 2002, Metro Birch willfully violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the base of the station's antenna tower, and by failing to maintain all required items in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238013A1.pdf
      • place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure. The antenna structure was observed on May 22, 2002, and no ASR number was visible. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 22, 2002, Titan willfully violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to display the ASR number. 6. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238014A1.pdf
      • four of WCPC's antenna towers were not enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 27, 2002, WCPC Broadcasting Co., Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide effective locked fences or other enclosures around their antenna structures. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238015A1.pdf
      • though Alliance acquired the structure on May 1, 2001, as of August 12, 2002, the antenna structure was still registered to the Paragould Light and Water Commission. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Alliance willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to change the antenna structure ownership information. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to notify the Commission of a change in antenna structure ownership is $3,000 (failure to file the required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238016A1.pdf
      • good visibility.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 28, 2002, Madison willfully violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules. Madison failed to display ASR numbers on all five of its antenna structures and it failed to clean or repaint its five antenna structures as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238017A1.pdf
      • antenna towers for AM radio station WDVA were found unlocked. Based on evidence before us, we find that Mitchell willfully and repeatedly violated Section17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structures, and willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose its antenna towers within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register antenna structures is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information), and for failing to enclose its antenna towers within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') requires us to take into account, ``... the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238018A1.pdf
      • find that Truth willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a), 73.49 and 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structures from at least January 22 to February 26, 2002, failing to maintain effective antenna tower base fencing on January 22 and 23, 2002, and exceeding authorized field strength limits on January 22 and 23, 2002. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the noted violations are $7,000 for failure to comply with AM fencing requirements, $4,000 for failure to comply with power limits, and $3,000 for failing to register an antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238019A1.pdf
      • sunrise with no lights exhibited. As of January 24, 2002, no report of any light outage was received by the FAA for Media's antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Media repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to display its ASR number and exhibit prescribed lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238020A1.pdf
      • August 19 and 20, 2002, WGGM exceeded field strength limits at two nighttime monitoring points by over 150%. Based on the evidence before us, we find HCI, willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49, 17.21 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain effective fencing, by failing to install prescribed lighting and for exceeding nighttime power limits. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective fencing is $7,000; for failing to install prescribed lighting it is $10,000 and for exceeding authorized power limits it is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238021A1.pdf
      • for the transmission of energy of communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on October 24, 2001, Javier Rodriguez willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238022A1.pdf
      • Aviation Administration must register the structure with the Commission. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority constructed a tower that required notification to the FAA, but failed to register the tower with the FCC. We find that Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority willfully violated Section 17.4(a) by failing to register their antenna structure as of January 29, 2002. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238023A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find Concilio willfully violated Sections 17.4(g), 17.51, and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number, failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting, and failing to report changes in structure ownership. The violation for Section 17.4(g) of the Rules also is repeated in that it occurred on more than one day. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000, and for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238024A1.pdf
      • no mechanism to determine if tower lights were properly working the previous night, had no knowledge as to whether the lights had been visually observed, and the station's log had no entries indicating lighting failures. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mayaguez Radio Corporation willfully violated Section 17.51 by failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the of the Rules, the base forfeiture for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238025A1.pdf
      • we must conclude that stations WRRA, WAXJ and WDHP conducted no EAS monthly tests from at least January 1 to April 25, 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find Reef willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61(a)(1)(i) of the Rules by failing to conduct the required monthly EAS tests between January 1 and April 26, 2002. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct EAS tests is $2,000 (failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238027A1.pdf
      • 2002, Alpha operated radio transmission equipment on the Public Safety Radio frequencies 463.100 and 468.100 MHz without the required FCC authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on May 6, 2002, Alpha willfully violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Commission's Rules by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238038A1.pdf
      • antenna structure 1061028 were not illuminated between sunset and sunrise. The FAA received no notification of tower light malfunctions for this tower from Florida Power and Light Company. We find that Florida Power and Light Company willfully violated section 17.51(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to properly exhibit red obstruction lights between sunset and sunrise. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238039A1.pdf
      • penalties for unlicensed operation and marketing unauthorized devices, yet continued to market the unauthorized devices in violation of the Act and the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CTI willfully violated Section 301 of the Act, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238040A1.pdf
      • output was at least twenty watts, and the readout of the power meter during the station inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 11, 2002, Mr. Joseph S. McCreary willfully violated Section 95.411 of the Rules by using an external radio frequency power amplifier as part of his Citizen Band radio station. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $5,000 (use of unauthorized equipment). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238041A1.pdf
      • EAS equipment was not operational. The station logs showed no evidence that the equipment had been taken out of service for repair nor that tests had ever been made. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2002, WRHC willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to provide operational EAS equipment. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $8,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238042A1.pdf
      • public to the tower bases. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2002, Fenix willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.51 and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide operational EAS equipment, failing to light its towers between sunset and sunrise, and failing to enclose towers with an effective locked enclosure. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this Notice are: $8,000 for non-operational EAS equipment; $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed tower lighting; and $7,000 for failure to enclose antenna tower bases. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238043A1.pdf
      • in writing of its violation, warned Lightning about the penalties for marketing non-compliant devices, yet Lightning continued to market the non-compliant device in violation of both the Act and the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lightning willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238044A1.pdf
      • Also, there were no entries in the station log indicating equipment malfunction or repair, nor reasons for failure to conduct required EAS tests. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 13, 2002, Faith Bible College, Inc. willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational readiness of its EAS equipment. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238045A1.pdf
      • 14, 2002, Richard Mu�oz operated radio transmission equipment on the frequency 105.1 MHz without benefit of a license required for such operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on April 20 and May 14, 2002, Richard Mu�oz willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238046A1.pdf
      • without benefit of the required license. Mr. Sarmiento was warned verbally and in writing of the violation yet continued the unlicensed operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 19 and 20, 2002, Octavio Sarmiento, Jr. repeatedly and willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238047A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Seggi willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(g), 17.23, 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to display the ASR numbers, failing to provide prescribed obstruction lighting, failing to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings, and failing to exhibit red obstruction lights from sunset to sunrise. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation. In assessing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238048A1.pdf
      • 14, 2002, Mediacom repeatedly and willfully violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by failing to limit signal leakage from its cable television system to the specified amount. We also find that on March 13, 2002, Mediacom willfully violated Section 76.611(a) of the Rules by exceeding the allowed cumulative signal leakage performance criteria on its cable television system. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $8,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238049A1.pdf
      • Manuel M. V�zquez operated radio transmission equipment on the frequency 103.3 MHz without benefit of the required Commission license. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 19 and April 20, 2002, Manuel M. V�zquez willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238050A1.pdf
      • April 4 and April 18, 2002, the paint on the lower two-thirds of the structure was obstructed by cables attached to the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pinnacle Towers, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238051A1.pdf
      • with a license. On May 14, 2002, Homere Hyppolite operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 99.7 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 14, 2002, Homere Hyppolite willfully2 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238052A1.pdf
      • Inc. failed to exhibit the required lights on the WPGS tower from at least April 23 to April 25, 2002. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WPGS, Inc. repeatedly and willfully violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238053A1.pdf
      • FCC equipment certification, that exceeded the radiation limitations for such devices, and that caused harmful interference. Based on the evidence before us, we find Accessory Connection Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 301 and 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, by operating an unauthorized cellular antenna light display unit without the required Commission authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of radio transmission equipment without an authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238054A1.pdf
      • with a license. On May 14, 2002, Odino Joseph operated a radio station on the frequency 104.3 MHz from 530 11th Street North, Naples, Florida, without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Odino Joseph willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmission apparatus without a license is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238186A1.pdf
      • tuning box to the antenna was not protected by any fencing or other enclosure. The antenna had radio frequency potential at the base of the antenna structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on April 23 and 24, 2002, Wilson Broadcasting Co., Inc. repeatedly and willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $7,000 for AM tower fencing violations. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238187A1.pdf
      • or below 64. On May 14, 2002, Comcast's cable system in Etowah, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 68.3. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 14, 2002, Comcast Cablevision of the South willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238188A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Atlantic Beach Radio, Inc. willfully violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and by operating with excessive power during nighttime hours in violation of the terms of station authorization. These violations are repeated in that they occurred on more than one day. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and for operation with excessive power is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238189A1.pdf
      • Central willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51, 17.23, 17.48(a), and 17.47(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting, failing to conform to the prescribed painting and lighting specifications, failing to notify the FAA of the extinguishment of the lighting, and failing to maintain an automatic alarm system which can detect failure of the lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238190A1.pdf
      • failure to attenuate its second harmonic emissions. Based on the evidence before us, we find Monroe willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1745(a), 73.1201(a), and 73.44(b) of the Rules by operating with daytime power at night, failing to identify the station by call sign, and failing to attenuate transmission system emissions by the amount prescribed in the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000, failure to identify is $1,000, and unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238191A1.pdf
      • the owner to immediately notify the Commission using FCC Form 854 upon any change in ownership. Commission records reflect the structure's previous owner. Based on the evidence before us, we find East Tennessee willfully violated Sections 17.4(g), and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number and failing to report changes in structure ownership. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238192A1.pdf
      • made two attempts to register the structure, it has been over two years since the last attempt, with no evidence of any further attempts since August, 9 1999. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Morris Communications, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238193A1.pdf
      • location of 32� 13' 35''N Latitude, 083� 13' 10''W Longitude. Based on the evidence before us, we find Farnell O'Quinn willfully violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate in accordance with the terms of the station authorization by failing to construct its transmitter site and antenna structure for WUFF at the licensed geographical coordinates. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238194A1.pdf
      • EAS tests conducted or received for the period February 2, 2000 to June 27, 2002, nor did the system record indicate EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair. Based on the evidence before us, we find Adelphia Communications Corporation willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238195A1.pdf
      • least 1 hour and 15 minutes, past the time to discontinue operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find Lighthouse Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to reduce power at sunset and then discontinue operation after the post sunset authority hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and for operation with excessive power during post sunset hours and failure to discontinue operation after post sunset hours is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238196A1.pdf
      • July 10, 2002, Overton's cable system in Livingston, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 70.6. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 10, 2002, James C. Bilbrey ET AL, Overton County Cable TV willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238197A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find J & W Promotions, Inc., willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed and operational at WAPZ, by failing to register WAPZ's antenna structure with the Commission, and by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing its antenna tower. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register its antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238198A1.pdf
      • 2002, Valley's cable system in Fort Valley, Georgia operated with a CLI value of 68.3. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 23 and 25, 2002, Valley Cable TV, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and on July 25, 2002, willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238199A1.pdf
      • feet in height. In addition, the structure had been assigned painting and lighting requirements by the FCC on the WANA broadcast station license. Therefore, Lankford's antenna structure required Commission registration. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dewey D. Lankford willfully violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register his antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238200A1.pdf
      • addition, the structure had been assigned painting and lighting requirements by the FCC on the WOFE broadcast station license. Therefore, P & G's antenna structure required Commission registration. Based on the evidence before us, we find that P & G Properties, Inc. willfully violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238201A1.pdf
      • addition, the structure had been assigned painting and lighting requirements by the FCC on the WDNT broadcast station license. Therefore, Brewer's antenna structure required Commission registration. Based on the evidence before us, we find that J. L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC willfully violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238202A1.pdf
      • structure was registered from at least August 26 to September 3, 2002. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Southern Media Communications, Inc. willfully violated Sections 11.35(a) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was operational at WBCA and by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to register its antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238203A1.pdf
      • and 1:50 P.M local time. The station's general manager stated that the main studio was not staffed during normal business hours. Based on the evidence before us, we find Coffee County Broadcasting, Inc. willfully violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WMSR(AM) during normal business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238204A1.pdf
      • 30, 2002, no medium intensity obstruction lighting was observed on Signal One's antenna structure #1216312. Signal One had not notified the FAA of the light outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find Signal One willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238205A1.pdf
      • of contracting to have the structure repainted, however, visibility of the structure at the time of inspection was diminished during daylight hours. Based on the evidence before us, we find Barinowski willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1062662. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238207A1.pdf
      • 2002, Tarrant operated station KZEE with antenna input power at 130% of the authorized daytime power of 500 watts. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 9 and 24, 2002, Tarrant repeatedly and willfully violated Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Commission's rules by operating with antenna input power greater than 105% of authorized power. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for exceeding authorized power limits (i.e. operating station KZEE with an antenna input power at a level more than 105% of authorized power). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238208A1.pdf
      • 1054515, which was required to be painted, had significantly faded paint resulting in poor visibility of the structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 19, 2002, Kilgore Video willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and, with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238209A1.pdf
      • that required notice to the FAA, and thus required Commission registration, yet Community Broadcast failed to register the structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that from at least April 17, 2002 through May 7, 2002, Community Broadcast repeatedly and willfully violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238210A1.pdf
      • of December 6, 2001. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on December 6, 2001, TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc., willfully violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of each transmitter site located within 120 km (75 miles) of the U.S. - Mexican border within 30 days of commencing operation. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238211A1.pdf
      • 29 to June 11, 2002, MSA Development owned an antenna structure that required notice to the FAA, and thus required Commission registration, yet MSA Development failed to register the structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find MSA Development willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238212A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find Hill Country Real Estate Development Corporation repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 17.50, 17.51 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to repaint the structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility, failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting, and failing to notify the Commission upon any change in ownership information. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information, such as the required notification to the FCC of changes in ownership information, is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking specifications is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238213A1.pdf
      • is the registered owner of antenna structure number 1051379 and is responsible for maintaining the structure's lighting and marking. On May 5, 2002, Access.1 failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure number 1051379 located in Marshall, Texas. Based on the evidence before us, we find Access.1 Communications Corp. willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238214A1.pdf
      • and did not register the tower until May 1, 2002, after an agent of the Houston Office informed them that the tower was not registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Texas Cable Partners LP willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register their antenna structure. . 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238215A1.pdf
      • license. American Family Association failed to maintain a main studio for station KBKC. American Family Association neither requested nor received a waiver of the main studio rules for KBKC. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American Family Association willfully violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio for KBKC. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238216A1.pdf
      • Iowa. Even though the metallic supporting structure of the antenna structure was painted, the unpainted, black coaxial cable mounted on the outside of the supporting structure obscured the visibility of the paint. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on May 1, 2002, Midwest Tower Partners, LLC willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238217A1.pdf
      • visibility.'' On April 3, 2002, Lake Mobile Phone failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure number 1064409. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 3, 2002, Lake Mobile Phone willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238218A1.pdf
      • structure number 1033509 required painting because it exceeded 200 feet in height and painting was prescribed by both the FCC and FAA, yet the structure was unpainted. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on May 16, 2002, Haviland willfully violated Section 17.21 of the Rules by failing to paint the tower as required. 4. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed painting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238219A1.pdf
      • Deans Cablevision Inc. failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure number 1223423 because the required structure markings were faded and rusted. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 30, 2002, Deans Cablevision Inc. willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238220A1.pdf
      • and receive EAS tests; failing to conduct required monitoring of the tower lighting and lighting systems associated with the four towers utilized by station KGGF; failing to clean and repaint the paint on the four KGGF towers; and failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the four KGGF towers with RF potential at their base. . Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violation(s) cited in this notice are: $10,000 for failure to clean and repaint the towers, $7,000 for failure to maintain effective locked fencing, $2,000 for failure to conduct required monitoring of the lighting and lighting system, and $2,000 for failure to determine and log the cause of any failure to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238221A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio for KBIY and Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to make available the public file during regular business hours and failing to retain required materials in the public file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000 and violations of the public file rules is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238222A1.pdf
      • own staffing schedule for the previous week showed the main studio completely unattended for most of the business day during that week. Based on the evidence before us, we find KGGF-KUSN, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of KGGF-FM during normal business hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238224A1.pdf
      • VoiceStream's antenna structure #1226514. According to VoiceStream, the lighting was not exhibited until June 29, 2002. VoiceStream did not notify the FAA of the light outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find VoiceStream willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit all high intensity and medium intensity obstruction lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238225A1.pdf
      • the structure had no strobed lighting in operation at the time of inspection to increase its visibility to aircraft during daylight hours. Based on the evidence before us, we find Verizon willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1001297. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238226A1.pdf
      • on Alltel's antenna structure #1004380 was severely faded and no longer the required aviation orange in color. As a result the structure was not clearly visible. Based on the evidence before us, we find Alltel willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the antenna structure as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to clean and repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238236A1.pdf
      • main studio must provide sufficient transmission system monitoring and control capability so as to ensure compliance with Section 73.1350 of the Rules. Section 73.1800(a) of the Rules requires licensees of each station to maintain a station log. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238237A1.pdf
      • that 420 Energy was aware for some time that it was operating in violation of Section 1.903(a) and consciously chose to continue to operate in violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 420 Energy Investments, Inc. operated in willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for use of an unauthorized frequency at four thousand dollars ($4,000) per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238238A1.pdf
      • repaired the following day. The licensee further stated that the lock on the door at tower #3 was ``cleaned, lubricated and reinstalled'' on November 25, 2000. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Erald Broadcasting, Inc. operated in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for AM tower fencing violations at seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238239A1.pdf
      • certificated and by using a power amplifier, in violation of Sections 95.409 and 95.411 of the Commission's Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2001, Jeffrey Alan Pettrey operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), set the base forfeiture amounts of $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238240A1.pdf
      • and red flashing lighting during the nighttime. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Detroit SMSA Limited Partnership willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Section 17.23 of the Commission's Rules by its failure to light the antenna tower with medium intensity lighting during the daytime. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for prescribed lighting. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238241A1.pdf
      • Shepler'' having navigated the Great Lakes on September 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 28, 2000, and their vessel the ``Wyandot'' having navigated the Great Lakes on September 20, 22, and 24, 2000 without having had their radiotelephone installation inspected and certified as required by the Great Lakes Agreement. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at five hundred dollars ($500) per day for violating the Great Lakes Agreement. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238242A1.pdf
      • ``Capt. Shepler'' and ``Wyandot'', for apparent violations of Sections 80.953(a) and 80.953(b) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (the ``Rules'') by navigating the Great Lakes without having obtained the annual GLA inspection and certification of their marine VHF radiotelephone equipment. Specifically, we correct the citation of Section 503(b)(2)(d) of the Act in paragraph 6 of the NAL to read Section 1.80 of the Rules. Since violation of the Great Lakes Agreement is subject to a non-Section 503 forfeiture, we must reference only the Section 1.80 provisions. In like manner, we must also correct the reference to base forfeiture amounts and their inflation adjustment. Section 1.80 specifies a statutory maximum of five hundred fifty dollars ($550) per day for non-Section 503 forfeitures.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238243A1.pdf
      • Sections 73.1225(d)(1), 73.1350(a), 73.1690(b)(2), 73.3526(e)(1) and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain records, failing to operate WCMI(AM) according to the terms of the station authorization by constructing and operating from an unauthorized location, failing to file the required forms or information and failing to maintain the public inspection file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for operating beyond the terms of the station authorization, $4,000 for construction at an unauthorized location, $1,000 for failure to maintain records, $3,000 for failure to file the required forms
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238244A1.pdf
      • MHz, on August 22, 2000, September 6, 2000, September 7, 2000, September 14, 2000, September 16, 2000, and September 17, 2000, without a license or other authorization issued by the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dr. Pierre willfully and repeatedly violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for operation of an unlicensed transmitter at eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238245A1.pdf
      • shall contain a statement of action taken to correct the condition or omission complained of and to preclude its recurrence. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NEPC willfully violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure and Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), the base amount for failure to respond to official Commission correspondence is $4,000, and the base amount for failure to register antenna structures is $3,000 (failure
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238246A1.pdf
      • Rules. Zachery's responses to the Notices have been deficient in substance and in some cases have failed to address the violations. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Zachery Broadcasting Company willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.3526, 17.50, 17.56, 17.48, 17.49, 17.4(a) and 73.49 of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain EAS equipment [� 11.35(a)] is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a public inspection file [�73.3526] is $10,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238247A1.pdf
      • operator had reviewed the logs for required entries. In response to the NOV, Mr. Paris stated that ``we failed to maintain the logs properly''. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KYOO Communications willfully and/or repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records and logs [�73.1800(a)] is $1,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required monitoring of the operational parameters and calibrate the remote AM base current metering
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238248A1.pdf
      • Section 17.50 of the Rules due to cabling attached to the antenna structure that obscured the structure's required obstruction markings. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pinnacle willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with antenna structure registration #1053157. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238249A1.pdf
      • to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Considering the entire record and applying the factors listed above, this case warrants a forfeiture of $2,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Qwest Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willful violation of Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to display the antenna structure registration number. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238250A1.pdf
      • Louis Mobile System Inc. failed to register its antenna structure located at or near 38� 17' 31" North Latitude and 91� 41" 50' West Longitude, near Belle, Missouri. Based on the evidence before us, we find St. Louis Mobile System Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238251A1.pdf
      • Cumulus consummated purchase of both stations on July 18, 2001. As of July 10, 2002, the licensee was missing four quarterly lists for each of the stations. Based on the evidence before us, we find Cumulus willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain required issues-programs listings at both KQTP and KWIC. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure maintain required records, such as the issues-programs listings, is $1,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238252A1.pdf
      • As of July 19, 2002, AAT admitted that they continued to fail to provide any monitoring of the lighting every 24 hours or provide an automatic alarm system. Based on the evidence before us, we find AAT willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to monitor the status of its antenna structure lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to monitor the status of its antenna structure lighting (failure to conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238253A1.pdf
      • by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the base of the KPWB AM tower, failing to provide transmitter control and monitoring capabilities for the KPWB FM transmitter, failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, and failing to maintain a current ownership report, request for political time and issues-programs lists in the station's public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for AM tower fencing violations, $3,000 for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, $8,000 for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment, and $10,000 for violation of the public file rules. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238254A1.pdf
      • 2002. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 17, 2002, American willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.3527(e)(4), 73.3527(e)(7) and 73.3527(e)(8) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, and by failing to maintain a current ownership report, The Public and Broadcasting, and issues-programs lists in the station's public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 for EAS equipment not being operational, and $10,000 for violation of the public file rules. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238255A1.pdf
      • dark appearance. As a result of the faded paint and black cabling, the structure was not clearly visible. Based on the evidence before us, we find Crown Castle GT Company LLC willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1008517. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238259A1.pdf
      • so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and systems are in operation.'' 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 11, 2001, Union willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have functioning EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238260A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find that during the period of March 10 - May 9, 2001, Barnstable Broadcasting, Inc. dba Two Rivers Broadcasting Limited Partnership repeatedly and willfully violated Section 17.51(b) of the rules by failing to maintain all lighting in operational condition and failing to notify the Federal Aviation Administration of any light outages. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000 for failure to maintain prescribed obstruction lighting, and $1,000 for failure to determine and log the reasons why EAS tests were not being received. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238261A1.pdf
      • writing within ten days from receipt of a notice from the Commission or such other period as may be specified. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that National Cable willfully violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to the Notices of Violation dated September 6, 2001, and October 5, 2001. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238262A1.pdf
      • to July 1, 1998. 5. Section 73.49 of the Rules requires that antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base be enclosed by an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 23, 2000, T & W willfully violated sections 17.4(a)(2) and 73.49 of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000. The base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238263A1.pdf
      • the 17 pieces of correspondence from the Commission associated with the inspections of these stations. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 7, 2000, Christian Broadcasting Corporation willfully violated Sections 1.89(b) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence and for failing to register its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base amount for failure to respond to official Commission correspondence is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to register antenna structures is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). The total base forfeiture for both violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238264A1.pdf
      • or other enclosure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 24, 2001, Hancock willfully violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available, and failing to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have functioning EAS equipment is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238265A1.pdf
      • tower was unlocked. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 14, 2001, MAPA willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available, and failing to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fence violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238266A1.pdf
      • and standing open. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CWH willfully violated Sections 17.4(a)(2), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to register its three antenna structures, failing to exhibit red obstruction lights on its antenna structures, and failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's ``south'' antenna structure. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structures (failure to file required forms or information) is $ 3,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting or painting is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violation is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238267A1.pdf
      • under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 13, and September 13, 2000, Richard I. Rowland operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated and willfull violation of Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238268A1.pdf
      • III. DISCUSSION Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31, 2000, Cumulus Licensing Corporation willfully violated Section 11.35(a), of the Commission's Rules by not having Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment installed and operating at Stations WHBX(FM), Tallahassee, Florida, WHBT(AM), Tallahassee, Florida, and WWLD(FM), Tallahassee, Florida. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 each for not having EAS equipment installed or operational. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238269A1.pdf
      • send or receive EAS test and alerts. III. DISCUSSION Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31, 2000, Rebus, Inc. willfully violated Section 11.35(a), of the Commission's Rules by not having Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment installed and operating at station WTAL(AM) in Tallahassee, Florida. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 for not having EAS equipment installed or operational. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238270A1.pdf
      • tower in question and filed the appropriate forms after they were advised of the discrepancy. DISCUSSION Section 17.51(a) requires that all red obstruction lighting shall be exhibited from sunset to sunrise unless otherwise specified. FCC agents confirmed the allegation about antenna structure light outages. The antenna structure owner failed to exhibit the red obstruction lights as required. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238271A1.pdf
      • determined that SpectraSite was unaware of the tower outage and that FAA had not been notified of the outage. III. DISCUSSION 4. Section 17.51(a) requires that all red obstruction lighting shall be exhibited from sunset to sunrise unless otherwise specified. On April 5, 2001 Tampa Office agents observed that antenna structure # 1215109 was not illuminated. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (`Act'') requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238272A1.pdf
      • the time of the inspection, the owner had intentionally turned off the daytime lighting on the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American InfoAge, LLC willfully violated Section 17.51(b) of the Commission's Rules by its failure to comply with the Commission's Rules regarding the construction, marking and lighting of antenna structures. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take in account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238273A1.pdf
      • willfully violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Section 17.23 of the Commission's Rules by failing to paint and light the antenna structure. In addition, we find that Rio Grande willfully violated Section 17.57 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify the Commission immediately of any change in structure height. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for prescribed lighting and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238274A1.pdf
      • responded on February 27, 2001. In the reply, CommuniComm identifies the specific actions taken to correct the violations noted in the NOV and to preclude their recurrence, as well as, a time line for completion of such actions. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules. ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision. ``Repeated'' means
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238275A1.pdf
      • ``willfull'' as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. It is not pertinent whether or not the licensee's act or omissions are intended to violate the law. Forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b)(2) of the Act are determined in accordance with the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement). 7. The Commission's Rules clearly state that if tower construction or modification is planned within 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) of a directional AM broadcast station array, the Public Mobile Service licensee must notify the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238276A1.pdf
      • to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The amount of forfeiture penalty should take into consideration the severity of the instant violation, in addition to the status and prior offenses of the violator. The base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000, in accordance with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In view of the fact that HCTV was previously issued an Official Notice of Violation on November 29, 2000 for violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules, we see no reason to mitigate the base forfeiture amount. ORDERING CLAUSES 10.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238277A1.pdf
      • on July 26, 2000, Califormula continues to operate the Private Microwave radio station at 1690 Frontage Road, Chula Vista, California. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that since July 25, 2000, Califormula has willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, as amended, by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an authorization is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238278A1.pdf
      • is outstanding.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hogar has willfully violated Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by not maintaining a public inspection file. A monetary forfeiture of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is proposed for this violation. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violating Sections 73.54(d), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1590(a)(6) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238291A1.pdf
      • that on September 10, 2000, Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated and willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. And, on March 20, 2000 Mr. Nakamura transmitted a false distress signal in willful violation of Section 325(a) of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $10,000 for unlicensed operation, and $7,000 for causing malicious interference. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238292A1.pdf
      • in accordance with the Act and with a license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 10, 2000, Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a Marvin Eugene Barnes operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated and willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238293A1.pdf
      • 23 and 25, 2001, Alan-Leonard Brockway operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated and willful violation of Section 301 of the Act and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow an inspection of his radio station upon reasonable request by an authorized Commission representative. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), set the base forfeiture amounts of $10,000 for unlicensed operation and $7,000 for failure to allow inspection. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238294A1.pdf
      • and repeatedly violated section 73.1580 and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Commission's Rules by its failure to conduct required inspections of the transmitting and monitoring sytems to ensure proper station operation and failure to review station records and verify that the station was operating as required by the Commission's Rules and station authorization. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), set base forfeiture amounts of $4,000 for exceeding power limits, $3,000 for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring, and $1,000 for failure to maintain required records. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238296A1.pdf
      • surrounding the base of the tower was not locked and the gate was open. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 7, 2002, Anastos Media Group willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to enclose the base of the antenna tower at $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238297A1.pdf
      • an automatic properly maintained indicator designed to register failure of such lights, failing to notify the nearest Flight Service Station of the FAA of the extinguishment of the top steady burning light that was not corrected within 30 minutes and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make an observation of the antenna structure's lights at least once each 24 hours at $2000, failure to notify the nearest Flight Service Station of the FAA of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238298A1.pdf
      • is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure. Section 73.49 of the Rules requires that licensees enclose any AM tower with radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238299A1.pdf
      • of the WNAM array on August 7, 2001, the agent found a fence had fallen over, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the antenna. Per the licensee's reply, it was not repaired until September 18, 2001. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238300A1.pdf
      • and local authorities a means for immediate communications with the public to provide information during emergencies. Broadcast stations must transmit national level EAS messages and tests. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Faith willfully violated Section 11.52(a) of the Rules by failing to install and operate EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238301A1.pdf
      • improper functioning of the tower lighting on the morning of May 16, 2002. Mortenson waited until after another sunset to sunrise period before notifying the FAA of the improper functioning of the lights. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mortenson willfully violated Section 17.51(a) of the Commission's Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238302A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rule requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine what an appropriate forfeiture amount should be for this violation. The requirement that cable systems conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other required operational performance checks identified in the Rules as required measurements or required monitoring. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring. As failure to make measurements or conduct required monitoring carries a base forfeiture amount of $2,000, pursuant to the Forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238303A1.pdf
      • Transport, Inc. has willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, as amended, by failure to maintain the prescribed illumination of its antenna tower, and Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Commission's Rules by their failure to register its antenna tower and their failure to respond to official Commission correspondence. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the lighting violation, three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to register the antenna structure and $4,000 for failure to respond to official Commission correspondence. In assessing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238304A1.pdf
      • reply of August 23, 2001. Checks made on September 20, 2001 revealed that Parnassos had still failed to register their tower. III. DISCUSSION 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Parnassos has willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register their antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to register the antenna structure. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238305A1.pdf
      • violated the Great Lakes Agreement and Sections 80.953(a) and 80.953(b) of the Commission's Rules as a result of their vessel the ``Recovery'' having navigated the Great Lakes on June 10, 11, 19 and 24, 2001 without having had their radiotelephone installation inspected and certified as required by the Great Lakes Agreement. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the statutory maximum amount forfeiture at five hundred fifty dollars ($550) per day for violating the Great Lakes Agreement. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the downward adjustment factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238306A1.pdf
      • Thomas A. Brothers and inspected the radio station at 3845 Ellwood, Berkley, Michigan. During this inspection Mr. Brothers indicated that he had operated the station but was discontinuing the operation. III. Discussion Based on the evidence before us, we find that Thomas A. Brothers willfully violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $11,000 for operation of an unlicensed transmitter. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238307A1.pdf
      • make a correction to the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) issued to Thomas A. Brothers. Specifically, we correct the reference to the base forfeiture amount in paragraph 5 of the NAL. The corrected second sentence of paragraph 5 reads as follows: ``The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for operation of an unlicensed transmitter.'' IT IS ORDERED that a copy of this Erratum shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Thomas A. Brothers, 3845 Ellwood,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238308A1.pdf
      • available during the times the station is in operation. At the time of inspection, Oberlin failed to have Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment installed and operating. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Oberlin willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) by failing to install and maintain operational EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238309A1.pdf
      • conspicuous location so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure; Sections 17.47(a)(1) and 17.47(a)(2) for failing to monitor the antenna tower lights; Section 17.48(a) for failing to report the tower light outage to the FAA; and Section 17.51(b) for failing to continuously exhibit the intensity lighting. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the lighting violation; and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to report the tower light outage to the FAA. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238310A1.pdf
      • Missouri as of June 4, 2002, and failed to register its antenna structure near Hannibal, Missouri as of June 5, 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4 and June 5, 2002, US Cable willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register two of its antenna structures. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure is $3,000 for each violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238312A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238337A1.pdf
      • failing to provide written response to Section 80.29, 80.159(d) and 80.409(b) violations in reply to Federal Communications Commission official correspondence dated September 28, 1999, October 25, 1999, December 3, 1999 and February 28, 2000. Based on the evidence before us, we find that LaPierre willfully violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failing to provide written response to Federal Communications Commission official correspondence at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238338A1.pdf
      • When questioned during the subsequent interview as to the status of the public file, he responded by stating that one had not been established as yet. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RADIO ONE LICENSES INC. willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(d), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1800(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000), failure to establish a local or toll-free telephone number in the community of license one thousand dollars ($1,000), failure to establish
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238339A1.pdf
      • 28, 2001. Time Warner acknowledged in its response that it had failed to comply with the Commission's EAS requirements, and detailed corrective steps that it had taken to eliminate the violations (e.g., repairing EAS equipment). III. Discussion The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision. ``Repeated'' means commission or
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238340A1.pdf
      • properly. Section 17.48(a) of the Rules requires the owners of an antenna structure that has been assigned lighting specifications to notify the FAA if the lights on the tower are extinguished and not corrected within 30 minutes. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238341A1.pdf
      • 105% of the authorized power. Based on the evidence before us, we find that J4 willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.51(e)(2) for failing to keep a record of the efficiency factor ``F'' in the station records and Section 73.1560(a)(1) for operating with power in excess of 105% of the authorized power. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $1,000 for failing to maintain a record of the efficiency factor ``F'' in the station records (required records), and $4,000 for operating with power in excess of 105% of the authorized
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238342A1.pdf
      • neighborhood electronic devices the Detroit Office received regarding his CB operation, and his admission that he operated his CB radio with the linear amplifier attached. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Frank Kluz willfully violated Section 95.411 by having a linear amplifier in line at his CB station. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $5,000 for the use of unauthorized equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238343A1.pdf
      • under the provisions of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 12, 2000, November 16, 2001, and November 17, 2001, Rev. Dr. Philius Nicholas was responsible for the operation of radio transmission equipment on 88.1 MHz, without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238344A1.pdf
      • on November 16, and November 17, 2001; 88.1 MHz on December 14, 2001, January 4, January 5, January 11, and January 18, 2002; 90.1 MHz on January 27, 2002, and 88.1 MHz on June 22, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238345A1.pdf
      • Act and with a license granted under the provisions of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gateway Security Systems, Inc., operated radio transmission equipment on 464.0375 and 469.0375 MHz on May 24, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238349A1.pdf
      • has determined, based on information contained in the FCC database for Antenna Structure Registration number 1060096, that the overall height above ground of Morgan's antenna structure is 88.3 meters (289.7 feet). Based on the evidence before us, we find that Morgan Tower Inc. has willfully violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking specifications. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238350A1.pdf
      • on 104.7 MHz was not licensed and exceeded the permissible level for non-licensed low-powered radio transmissions by 254 times. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 24, 2002, California Speedway operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238352A1.pdf
      • good visibility. The agent observed that the tower paint was badly faded and chipped, making the tower a hazard to air navigation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NMPC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the rules by failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of antenna structures. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238353A1.pdf
      • 11.35(a), 11.52(d), 17.4(a), and 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to determine the cause of failure to transmit receive the required EAS tests or activations and make the appropriate log entries, failing to monitor two EAS sources, failing to register the antenna structure, and failing to maintain the authorized operating power. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at $1,000, failure to make the required measurements or conduct the required monitoring at $2,000, failure to file required forms or information at $3,000 and exceeding
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238356A1.pdf
      • issues/programs lists even though the station had been owned by Petracom for at least two years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Petracom willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly EAS tests and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238358A1.pdf
      • the most recent ownership report. The station's Director of Broadcasting Operations stated that the current ownership report was on his desk in Overland Park, Kansas. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238362A1.pdf
      • ``willfull'' as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. It is not pertinent whether or not the licensee's act or omissions are intended to violate the law. Forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b)(2) of the Act are determined in accordance with the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement). 7. The Commission's Rules clearly state that if tower construction or modification is planned within 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) of a directional AM broadcast station array, the Public Mobile Service licensee must notify the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238364A1.pdf
      • license. On April 22 and 23, 2003, WLTC operated with daytime power after sunset until 8:16 p.m. and 9:10 p.m., respectively. Further, WLTC operated with excessive output power in the daytime mode on April 24, 2003. Based on the evidence before us, we find Neely repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating with unauthorized power. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized power operation is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238365A1.pdf
      • studio. Based on the evidence before us, we find RJM willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at its main studio, exceeding authorized nighttime operating power, and failing to make available the public inspection file during regular business hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000, for exceeding authorized operating power is $4,000 and for violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238453A1.pdf
      • of 70.9. Furthermore, based on AT&T Broadband's discovery of over 75 additional signal leaks in excess of the basic signal leakage criteria, the CLI value exceeded 74. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 7 and 8, 2002, AT&T Broadband willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238533A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238566A1.pdf
      • letters from the public, and the issues/programs lists for the years 2001 and 2002. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tralyn repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly EAS tests, and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct EAS tests is $2,000 (failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring), and the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238567A1.pdf
      • the antenna tower for station KAOK(AM) was not enclosed within an effective fence or other enclosure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pittman Broadcasting willfully violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238568A1.pdf
      • violated Section 17.57 of the Commission's Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of these structures. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Tecnet willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of antenna structures. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238569A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find Williams willfully violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to enclose the station's antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure and failing to make most documents required to be in the station's pubic inspection file available for inspection during regular business hours. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238570A1.pdf
      • of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and systems are in operation.'' At the time of inspection, Cox personnel acknowledged that the EAS equipment was not operational. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cox willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238571A1.pdf
      • as necessary to maintain good visibility.'' 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 21, 2000, Natchez willfully violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to display the antenna structure registration number and failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to display the antenna structure registration number is $1,000 (failure to maintain required records) and the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238586A1.pdf
      • easy access to the tower via a gate which was found unlocked and open. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 11, 2002, Kaspar Broadcasting Co. of Missouri willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the base of the station's antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238675A1.pdf
      • bases. Statements by WRXB personnel indicated this condition had existed for at least a month prior. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Metropolitan Radio Group of Florida, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of three antenna towers. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238742A1.pdf
      • the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this transmitter on the frequency 157.740 MHz from Morgantown and Clarksburg, WV. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cell Page willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238872A1.pdf
      • U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. � 227; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(e). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q �� |�����
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238960A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238975A1.pdf
      • to operate a CB station if the operator utilizes an external radio frequency power amplifier. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 21 and 23, 2001, Klaus D. Kramer repeatedly and willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitters without Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238976A1.pdf
      • subsequent search of FCC's records confirmed that Mr. Merrell was not licensed by the Commission to operate on the frequency 7220 kHz. III. DISCUSSION Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 26, 2001, David Edwin Merrell repeatedly and willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238977A1.pdf
      • of the Commission's rules. We conclude that since October 18, 2000, Groveton repeatedly and willfully violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's rules by failure to register the antenna supporting structure owned by Groveton and utilized by station KYCX-FM at or near geographical coordinates 31� 42' 25''N / 096� 31'23''W. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238978A1.pdf
      • repairs being made. Permission to resume normal operation was granted. On September 27, 2001 an agent from the Commission's Dallas office conducted a follow up inspection and found the system in compliance with the basic signal leakage criteria. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules. ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision. ``Repeated'' means
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238979A1.pdf
      • the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 15, 2002, Marcel (NMI) Charles, a.k.a. Marcel M. Charles, a.k.a. Mariel M.Charles, a.k.a. Joseph M. Charles willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238980A1.pdf
      • and May 14, 2002, Josue Alusma operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 100.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 20 and May 14, 2002, Josue Alusma repeatedly and willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238982A1.pdf
      • and FCC rules. On June 4 and July 1, 2002, the paint on the structure was obstructed by cables attached to the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tower Properties, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238983A1.pdf
      • failed to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on structure 1232899 in accordance with its registration requirements. In addition, Gulf Stream did not report the light outage to the FAA. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Gulf Stream willfully violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1232899. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238984A1.pdf
      • Florida. In addition, WELE failed to immediately notify the FAA of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find WELE willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on antenna structure 1062835 in Ormond Beach, Florida. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238985A1.pdf
      • ASR, and FCC rules. On August 21, 2002, cables attached to the structure obstructed the paint over the entire height of the structure, resulting in poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ashley willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238986A1.pdf
      • and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On November 4, 2002, Brian N. Bloom operated radio-transmitting equipment on the frequency 93.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Brian N. Bloom willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238987A1.pdf
      • except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On October 31, 2002, Mr. Ebanks operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 93.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Ebanks willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238988A1.pdf
      • and with a license. On October 30, 2002, Lovelock operated radio transmitting equipment at its business, the Rum Runner Caribbean Restaurant & Lounge, on the frequency 95.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Lovelock willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238989A1.pdf
      • studio. Based on the evidence before us, we find RJM willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at its main studio, exceeding authorized nighttime operating power, and failing to make available the public inspection file during regular business hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000, for exceeding authorized operating power is $4,000 and for violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238990A1.pdf
      • allow Commission agents to conduct an inspection of the radio station upon official requests. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 6, 2003, Ward F. Dean willfully violated Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license and by refusing to allow inspection of his radio station. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000, and for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238991A1.pdf
      • 64. On April 9 and 10, 2003, Suwannee Cable TV's cable system in Fanning Springs and Old Town, Florida operated with a CLI value of 72.7. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 9 and 10, 2003, Suwannee Cable TV willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238992A1.pdf
      • Cc: Mr. David P. Pace, Jr. d.b.a. Pacetronics Pace Marketing P.O. Box 631207 Nacogdoches, TX 75963 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 ! & ' / 1 3 6 7 87 8 < @ O R W X Y Z g i j k n o p q � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239066A1.pdf
      • register an existing antenna structure by July 1, 1998, and failing to make the station's public inspection file available during normal business hours. In addition, we find that Willis willfully violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to the Notice of Violation dated May 3, 2001, or our correspondence dated May 25, 2001. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operating EAS equipment is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information), and finally, the base forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239067A1.pdf
      • of daytime power on February 5, 2002, from station sign-on at 6:00 am CST until local sunrise at 6:30 am CST. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 4 and 5, 2002, Sycamore Valley Broadcasting, Inc. repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 11.52(d), 11.61(a), 17.50, 73.1400 and 73.1745(a) of the Commission's Rules. 14. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this notice are: $10,000 for failure to repaint the tower (failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking), $8,000 for non-operational EAS equipment, $4,000 for operating with excessive power at night (exceeding power limits), and $3,000 for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239068A1.pdf
      • decoders and Attention signal generating and receiving equipment used as part of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and systems are in operation....'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 4, 2002, WCSZ willfully2 violated Section 11.35(a)3 of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)4 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment is $8,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239069A1.pdf
      • below 64. On April 17, 2002, Comcast's cable system in Woodbury, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 69.3. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 17, 2002, Comcast Cablevision of Nashville II LLC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239070A1.pdf
      • meter was 20 amperes, or more than forty-two times the minimum normal indication. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 16 and 17, 2002, Radio 810 Nashville, Incorporated repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 73.1350(d)(2) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules, and on April 18, 2002, willfully violated Section 73.1215(a) of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this notice are: $4,000 for operating with excessive power at night (exceeding power limits), $3,000 for failure to terminate broadcast operation when required (violation of transmitter control and metering requirements), and $3,000 for failure to maintain properly calibrated monitoring equipment (violation of transmitter control and metering requirements).
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239071A1.pdf
      • failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available and failing to maintain a public inspection file. In addition, we find that Jamie Patrick willfully violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to the Notice of Violation dated July 26, 2001, or our correspondence dated September 19, 2001. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239072A1.pdf
      • and EOM code from December 2002 to April 2003, failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from December 1, 2002 to May 10, 2003, and failing to log entries of reasons why required monthly EAS tests were not received from December 2002 to April 2003. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239073A1.pdf
      • numbers. Verizon acquired ownership of these two towers on February 8, 2002, yet, as of July 31, 2002, Verizon had failed to notify the Commission of the change in ownership. Based on the evidence before us, we find Verizon willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to report changes in antenna structure ownership. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000 for each violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239074A1.pdf
      • and at intermediate levels of the structure during all phases of construction. In addition, Media General failed to immediately notify the FAA of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting. Based on the evidence before us, we find Media General willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit the required obstruction lighting. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239077A1.pdf
      • capable of operation on any frequency or frequencies between 24 and 35 MHz.'' 6. The external radio frequency power amplifier received by the Field Office on June 7, 2000, amplified radio signals on 27.185 MHz. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Exports R Us willfully violated Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment (radio frequency power amplifier) is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239154A1.pdf
      • the Dunwoody Village was in violation of Section 301 of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Networx Corporation has willfully violated Section 301 of the Act, as amended, by operating an unlicensed station at the Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community in Carlisle, Pennsylvania on August 23, 2001. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the operation of an unlicensed station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239155A1.pdf
      • AM Transmission system fencing requirements states ``Antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base (series fed, folded unipole, and insulated base antennas) must be enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that WOYK Inc. willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for AM tower fencing. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239156A1.pdf
      • enclosed with effective locked fences or other enclosures. On March 19, 2002 and April 24, 2002, the gate to the fence surrounding the WFBS(AM) antenna structure was unlocked. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FBS willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a), Section 17.51(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for FBS' failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting at $10,000, for FBS' failure to register the antenna structure with the Commission at $3,000 and for FBS' failure to maintain an effective locked
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239157A1.pdf
      • was aware prior to January 12, 2002 of its responsibility to properly measure, adjust and maintain all of its broadcast stations to avoid subsequent violations of Section 301 of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Networx apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239158A1.pdf
      • 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 5 and June 6, 2002, Qwest willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure and failing to maintain the tower paint in such condition that good visibility was achieved. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure at $3,000 for each violation, and for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239160A1.pdf
      • file was not available for inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find Radio X Broadcasting Corp. willfully violated Section 17.50 and 73.3526(b) by failing to repaint its antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure registration #1043256 and failing to keep a public inspection file at its main studio location. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and for failing to have a public inspection file at the station's main studio is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239161A1.pdf
      • Rules. Electronics Unlimited was notified in writing, of its violation, warned about the penalties for marketing non-compliant devices, yet, continued to market the non-compliant device in violation of both Sections. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Electronics Unlimited willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239162A1.pdf
      • lighting on its antenna structure number 1225706 in accordance with its registration requirements. The FAA had no report of a light outage on this structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find Florida Cellular Service, LLC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on its antenna structure 1225706. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239163A1.pdf
      • stations' actual antenna height. Broadcast stations may not construct or operate facilities without advance approval from the FCC. Both major and minor facilities changes require construction permits. The mere filing of an application to modify station facilities does not give the permittee or licensee any authority to make the requested changes. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),set base forfeiture amounts of $5,000 for exceeding authorized antenna height, $4,000 for construction or operation at unauthorized location, $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $1,000 for failure to maintain required records. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239164A1.pdf
      • the stations and systems are in operation." Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 9, 2001, Alpine willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),9 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,10 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,11 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239165A1.pdf
      • radio frequency radiation exposure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sam Bushman, licensee of station KNAK failed to enclose the AM transmission system with an effective locked fence or other enclosure in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),5 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,6 for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239187A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239285A1.pdf
      • on February 25, 2002 at 8:45 p.m., did not have a license for the Marine Coast station at the Beach Motel, 202 Arnold Avenue, Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey. III. Discussion Based on the evidence before us, we find that Amethyst has willfully violated Section 301 of the Act, as amended. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the operation of an unlicensed station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239286A1.pdf
      • position on the antenna structure. On November 7, 2001 and November 8, 2001, the top-level red obstruction lighting on antenna structure 1213201 was extinguished. Beacon failed to notify the FAA that the top-level obstruction lighting was extinguished. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Beacon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(g), Section 17.48(a) and Section 17.50 of the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239287A1.pdf
      • radiating structure and excessive radio frequency radiation exposure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Commonwealth failed to enclose the AM transmission system for station KLMR with effective locked fences or other enclosures in willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239288A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Rushmore willfully violated Sections 73.1350 and 73.1400 of the Commission's Rules by failing to establish monitoring procedures and schedules to determine compliance with operating power and modulation levels and failing to have positive control of the transmitter. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000.4 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239289A1.pdf
      • used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rushmore willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an aural auxiliary broadcast station without a license. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239290A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that North American Broadcasting Company, Inc, willfully violated Section 73.1560(a) of the Rules, by exceeding authorized nighttime power levels and failing to maintain operating power at the level and within the tolerances specified in its station authorization and by the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239291A1.pdf
      • area for Station KCOS-LP. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Aracelis Ortiz, Executrix of the Estate of Carlos Ortiz, apparently willfully violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1125(c) of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed and operational and failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for not maintaining a main studio is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239292A1.pdf
      • Webb Ridge Road and KY-59, approximately 4.2 miles northwest of Olive Hill, Kentucky, and at 3311 Happy Ridge Road, Ashland, Kentucky, were not registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FrontierVision has willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failure to register its antenna structures. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239293A1.pdf
      • until August 8, 2002, Fayette County Broadcasting did not have installed at their station properly operating EAS equipment. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Fayette County Broadcasting willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to install EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239294A1.pdf
      • base of the antenna structure. At the time of each inspection, the ASR number was not posted at the site. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that VoiceStream willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.4(g) by failing to post the ASR number near the base of the antenna structure. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is two thousand dollars ($2,000) per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239295A1.pdf
      • that Pilgrim apparently exceeded the authorized nighttime power level on May 9, 2001, in willful violation of Section 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and failed to maintain the required management and staff presence at KSKE's main studio, in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for exceeding power limits at nighttime in violation of Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules; and $7,000 for failing to maintain the required main studio presence in violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. In assessing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239297A1.pdf
      • Not only is harmful interference caused to a vital safety frequency, but a false activation could possibly obscure genuine distress transmissions. Tracking down such interference also places a strain on valuable resources of the safety and rescue agencies. Failure to comply with 47 C.F.R. � 80.89(a) may result in the imposition of a monetary forfeiture, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, or other administrative sanctions. 4. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.89, that Cliff Cassity shall, within 14 days of the release date indicated above, submit a written statement concerning this matter to the following address: Federal Communications Commission P. O. Box 971030 Waipahu, HI 96797-1030 The response shall contain a statement of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239456A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239620A1.txt
      • is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hT = > -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�'
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239875A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239919A1.pdf
      • under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On July 23, 2003, Mr. Upson operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.7 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Upson willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239920A1.pdf
      • monitor two EAS sources specified in the State EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. On February 7, 2002, and on April 14, 2003, station WROD failed to monitor its assigned EAS sources. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gove-Overgaard repeatedly and willfully violated Section 11.52(d) of the Rules by failing to monitor assigned EAS sources. 6. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring (e.g., failure to monitor EAS sources). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240118A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240410A1.txt
      • of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h gd I L � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240647A1.pdf
      • KKAC's main studio in Vandalia, Missouri maintained no staff or management presence during normal business hours. On each day, the main studio was locked and unoccupied. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Twenty-One willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at its main studio. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240649A1.pdf
      • U.S. Code. Please be advised that if you choose not to respond to this Citation and a forfeiture is issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � �2.803(a)(1) & 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ = % & #yJ � � #yJ , � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240795A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240879A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240880A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240913A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240923A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240929A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240934A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240937A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240950A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240953A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240954A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240957A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240958A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240972A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240973A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240974A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240975A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240976A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240989A1.pdf
      • U.S. Code. Please be advised that if you choose not to respond to this Citation and a forfeiture is issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � �2.803(a)(1) & 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ C + , + #yJ � � #yJ , � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241002A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241003A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241004A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241007A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241011A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241012A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241013A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241014A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241017A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241020A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241021A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241023A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241024A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241026A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241032A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241032A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241032A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241034A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241035A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241040A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241042A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241043A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241044A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241045A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241046A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241047A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241048A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241050A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241053A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241054A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241056A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241059A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241060A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241064A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241065A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241066A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241067A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241068A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241069A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241070A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241071A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241072A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241073A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241074A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241089A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241102A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241110A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241111A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241113A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241114A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241115A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241116A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241117A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241118A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241144A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241146A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241147A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241150A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241151A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241152A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241161A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241162A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241163A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241166A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241167A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241168A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241169A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241170A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241171A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241172A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241173A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241174A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241175A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241176A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241177A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241178A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241179A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241180A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241181A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241182A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241183A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241184A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241185A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241186A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241187A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241188A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241205A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241230A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241316A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241319A1.txt
      • Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). or at (202) 418-2875 to locate the appropriate field office. As indicated above, you must schedule such an interview to occur within 21 days of the date of this citation. Alternatively, you may submit a written statement responding to the citation within 21 days of the date of this citation. If you choose not to respond to this citation and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241389A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241595A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241786A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241846A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241846A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241846A2.txt
      • $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules. Based upon our review of all the pertinent factors as required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Isothermal Community College is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Isothermal Community
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242041A1.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242104A1.txt
      • in this citation are to the rules as they existed at the time of the facts at issue here. See attached complaints, IC nos. 03-W6261598, 03-W5946896, 02-N85773. See attached complaint, IC no. 02-N85773 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(e) (2002). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(3)(2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ��� ln`�( �0�WrG�' �}��''�Q �� |�����
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242161A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242190A1.pdf
      • Brown Broadcasting has been issued two violation notices for the same violation, yet still failed for the past four years to register the tower. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Brown Broadcasting System, Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)5of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)6 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242441A1.pdf
      • antenna structure 1217391 in accordance with its registration requirements. In addition, Vector failed to notify the FAA immediately of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Vector willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all required obstruction lights on structure 1217391. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242442A1.pdf
      • station license and antenna tower registration. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blountstown willfully violated Section 11.35, 73.49 and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operation of the EAS equipment, failing to enclose the base of the antenna system in a fence and failing to make available a complete public file. 8. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for EAS violations, $7,000 for tower fencing violations and $10,000 for public file violations. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242532A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242532A8.txt
      • Points 448,6701,984,728 411,4642,844,8623,900,202 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.42 Top 30 as % of International Points 89.7% 96.8% 98.3% 95.9% 97.9% 1 Western Europe 133,6831,077,115 165,1771,375,9751,984,659 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.27 2 Africa 3,460 9,048 0 12,508 1,160 0.38 0.32 0.80 0.64 3 Middle East 3,579 8,238 150 11,967 502 0.43 0.23 0.25 0.32 4 Caribbean 11,135 12,833 4,032 28,000 11,983 0.66 1.14 1.80 2.14 5 North and Central America 213,206 399,536 27,214 639,956 983,965 0.50 0.44 0.35 0.81 6 South America 19,357 43,284 20,814 83,455 108,394 0.30 0.20 0.19 0.36 7 Asia 45,743 379,571 134,060 559,374 763,014 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.24 8 Oceania 13,148 51,650 59,657 124,455 45,277 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.17 9 Eastern Europe 5,359 3,119 1 8,479 1,248 1.72 1.08 1.10
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242619A1.pdf
      • March 12, 2003. Section 17.51(a) of the Rules requires red obstruction lighting be exhibited from sunset to sunrise. WLTH failed to exhibit the required lights on its antenna structure from February 14, 2003 to March 12, 2003. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242620A1.pdf
      • or lighting requirements be registered with the Commission. Painting and lighting requirements had been assigned to Comcast's antenna structure, requiring registration with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Comcast willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242621A1.pdf
      • us, we find that Ivette operated a base station on the unauthorized frequency of 151.635 MHz on May 16, May19, and May 20 2003, and mobile units on the unauthorized frequency of 155.635 MHz on May19, and May 20, 2003, in willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242622A1.pdf
      • MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Star operated a base station and mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 451.500 MHz on January 7, 2003, and 151.845 MHz on, April 30, 2003 and May 2, 2003, in willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242623A1.pdf
      • of 468.250 MHz. Agents observed the repeater station operating on 473.175 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Forest operated radio transmission equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 473.173 MHz on June 17 and June 23, 2003, in willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242624A1.pdf
      • Script, and EOM code for the months of January 2003 and March 2003, and by failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from January 5, 2003 to February 22, 2003, from March 23 to April 5, 2003, and from April 27 to May 31, 2003. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242819A1.pdf
      • hours for AM broadcast station KBRN. Based on the evidence before us, we find PAULINO willfully violated Sections 73.1125, 11.35(a), and 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a main studio in the community of license, failing to maintain installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment, and failing to make available a public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000, for failing to have installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment is $8,000, and violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242819A1_Erratum.doc
      • hours for AM broadcast station KBRN. Based on the evidence before us, we find PAULINO willfully violated Sections 73.1125, 11.35(a), and 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a main studio in the community of license, failing to maintain installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment, and failing to make available a public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000, for failing to have installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment is $8,000, and violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242821A1.pdf
      • for broadcast station KUOL or SM Radio, Inc., in San Marcos, TX. A telephone number was obtained for station KUOL on December 16, 2003, however the telephone number was disconnected or not in service. Based on the evidence before us, we find SM willfully violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242821A1_Erratum.doc
      • for broadcast station KUOL or SM Radio, Inc., in San Marcos, TX. A telephone number was obtained for station KUOL on December 16, 2003, however the telephone number was disconnected or not in service. Based on the evidence before us, we find SM willfully violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243041A1.pdf
      • The station license lists antenna structure painting and lighting requirements. As of the date of this Notice, Louisa still has not registered the antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Louisa willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17(4)(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amounts at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information (e.g. failure to register the antenna structure). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243042A1.pdf
      • log entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of December 1, 2002 to January 25, 2003, February 23, 2003 to March 8, 2003, March 30, 2003 to April 5, 2003, April 13-19, 2003, April 27, 2003 to May 3, 2003, and May 11-24, 2003. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000 ($2,000 for each of Kimtron's two radio stations), and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000 ($1,000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243043A1.pdf
      • LOI, Citadel acknowledges that they were aware of, and responsible for, the gates being unlocked since the last week of September, 2003. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Citadel willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the station's antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243044A1.pdf
      • LRB Cc: Mr. Jonathan Edward Stone d.b.a. Omnitronics Pacetronics 4430 State Hwy 315 Carthage, TX 75633 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 : ] � � � � � - ; < A P \ ^ _ d � � tm � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243467A1.pdf
      • willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequencies 452.250 MHz and 457.250 MHz without a valid FCC authorization, Section 90.210 and 90.403(e) by transmitting spurious emissions resulting in interference to an amateur radio station and Section 90.425(a) by failing to transmit the station identification. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000, for causing interference is $7,000 and for failing to provide station identification is $1,000. Accordingly, the total base forfeiture in this instance is $12,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243468A1.pdf
      • of 2003 that the structure would be registered. Yet to date, the antenna structure has not been registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Redwood apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244158A1.pdf
      • exceeded 200 feet in height. Therefore, Eagle Broadcasting's three antenna structures required Commission registration. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Eagle Broadcasting, Inc. repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its three antenna structures with the Commission since at least January 1, 2003 until at least December 5, 2003. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244159A1.pdf
      • the structure's lighting. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Exosphere Broadcasting, LLC repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of the required antenna structure obstruction marking and by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting and/or markings is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244160A1.pdf
      • on 461.200 MHz, and is not authorized to operate a transmitter at Iolani Court Plaza, 2499 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rainbow Honolulu repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on an unauthorized frequency and operating at an unauthorized location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. Accordingly, the total base forfeiture in this instance is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244165A1.pdf
      • documents. Based on the evidence before us, we find Moody willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full time managerial presence at station KMDY and we find that Moody willfully violated Section 73.3527(c) by failing to make available for public inspection during regular business hours the complete public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000.00 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000.00. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244166A1.pdf
      • January 5 and 6, 2004, WFNO exceeded nighttime power limits and operated at night with daytime directional parameters. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find WFNO willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745 of the Rules by operating at times, or with modes or power, other than those specified and made part of the license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000. In addition, the base forfeiture amount for operating with excessive power is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244167A1.pdf
      • radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 102.1 MHz and on August 21, 2003 he once again operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 87.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Simon repeatedly and willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244168A1.pdf
      • under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On October 24, 2003, Mr. Alsbrooks operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.3 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Alsbrooks willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244169A1.pdf
      • with the Act and with a license. On September 24, 2003, Mr. Green operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 24, 2003, Mr. Green willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244170A1.pdf
      • with the Act and with a license. On March 5, 2003, Mr. Feldman operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 5, 2003, Mr. Feldman willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244171A1.pdf
      • in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � �2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R, �� 95.603(c), 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ - M N #yJ � � #yJ , �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244194A1.txt
      • amount of $7,100. The Companies may prepay this amount, and are encouraged to do so, without penalty. The Companies must make these payments by check, wire transfer or money order drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, and the check, or money order must refer to NAL Acct. No. 200332170002 and FRN No. 0007179054. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(h). The Companies must mail the check or money order to: Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. 16. In express reliance on the covenants and representations contained herein, the Bureau agrees to terminate this Proceeding and resolve the Show Cause Order. 17. The Companies represent and warrant that they shall not, for the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244497A1.txt
      • sum of $5,379,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), as well as the Commission's related rules and orders. 2. This Erratum corrects the Order of Forfeiture to require Fax.com, Inc. and its affiliated entities, successors and assigns to pay the penalty in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within 30 days from the release of this Erratum. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified herein, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244895A1.pdf
      • the required information. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WKLC, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), 73.3526(e)(5) and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed and working, by exceeding power limits, and for failure to maintain records in the public file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amounts at $8,000 for failure to comply with the rules relating to the installation and operability of EAS equipment, $4,000 for exceeding power limits and $10,000 for failure to comply with the public
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244896A1.pdf
      • MHz on September 22, 2003 and September 27, 2003, without a Commission authorization, in violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequencies, 96.1 MHz or 96.5 MHz in Bronx, NY. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244897A1.pdf
      • tests received for the months of December 2002, January 2003, March 2003, and April 2003, and state reasons why EAS tests were not received, failing to maintain station records of required weekly EAS tests received for the week of January 5-11, 2003, and state reasons why EAS tests were not received. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $4,000 ($1,000 for each of Capital Media's four radio stations, WHAZ, WBAR-FM, WMYY, and WMNV). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244898A1.pdf
      • radio transmitting equipment on the Two-Meter Amateur Radio Service frequency 145.8376 MHz. Neither Best Wok nor any of its employees held a license to operate a station in the Amateur Radio Service Band. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Best Wok willfully violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmitting equipment without a license at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244899A1.pdf
      • with a license. On November 4, 2003 and January 15, 2004, Mr. Louis operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 89.5 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Louis willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244900A1.pdf
      • at the main studio location. Based on the evidence before us, we find Rama willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules for failure to have the EAS transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation, and failure to make available upon request the entire public inspection file during regular business hours. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and for failure to maintain required records in the public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244974A1.pdf
      • May 11, 2003 to August 9, 2003, and August 24-30, 2003, and failing to log required entries of reasons why weekly EAS tests were not transmitted for the weeks of March 9-29, 2003, April 13, 2003 to May 3, 2003, May 11, 2003 to August 9, 2003, and August 24-30, 2003. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244975A1.pdf
      • that Parkway operated a base station and mobile units on a frequency of 155.265 MHz on September 3, September 4, and September 5, 2003; and on a frequency of 157.490 MHz on January 2, January 7 and January 8, 2004, in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244977A1.pdf
      • the FAA immediately of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Aquila, Inc. repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise during the period of February 3, 2004 to February 5, 2004. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting and/or markings is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244979A1.pdf
      • the attention signal on its assigned frequency of 1.340 MHz. Station logs contained no entries showing EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair. Based on the evidence before us, we find WBLB repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have its EAS transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244980A1.pdf
      • reflected Heart of Citrus, Inc. as the current owner of antenna structure 1027884. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find WGUL willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1027884 and failing to immediately notify the Commission upon any change in ownership information. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting is $10,000. The base amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244981A1.pdf
      • were not enclosed within an effective locked fence, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the structures. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., repeatedly and willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of its AM antenna towers. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244982A1.pdf
      • that Big Island Radio repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly and monthly EAS tests, and failing to determine the cause of the failures to receive the required EAS tests and log the reasons why the EAS tests were not received. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring timely retransmission of the monthly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244983A1.pdf
      • transmitting equipment without a license after multiple warnings. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Michael David Oaks willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitting equipment without a license on June 9, 2003, July 14, 2003, and September 16, 2003. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement), and Section 1.80 of the Commission Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245056A1.txt
      • 4200.0000 MHz 25M0G7W 82.00 dBW Analog Video and Data 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 36M0F8F 82.00 dBW Digital Video and Data 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 25M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Page 3 of 18 Dartmouth College E040127 SES-LIC-20040305-00323E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service 43 � 42 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 7 Lebanon St., Grafton, Hanover, NH 72 � 17 ' 20.20 " W LONG. LOCATION: Prodelin 1 2.4 meters ANTENNA ID: 1244-930 61.10 dBW PSK Digital Video w/digital audio/data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 24M0G7F PSK Digital Video w/ digital audio/data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 24M0G7F Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Emmis
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245203A1.pdf
      • violated the Great Lakes Agreement and Sections 80.953(a) and 80.953(b) of the Commission's Rules as a result of their vessel the ``West Harbor'' having navigated the Great Lakes on September 10 and September 13, 2003 without having had their radiotelephone installation inspected and certified as required by the Great Lakes Agreement. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the statutory maximum amount forfeiture at five hundred fifty dollars ($550) per day for violation of Great Lakes Agreement. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the downward adjustment factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245204A1.pdf
      • material was missing including five quarterly issues and programs lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find Citadel willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the station's main studio and failing to make available for inspection all required material in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245205A1.pdf
      • available the complete public inspection file for co-located stations WWDR/WDLZ. Based on the evidence before us, we find First Media Radio, LLC willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1560(a)(1) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules for operating in excess of authorized power at WWDR, and for failing to make available the complete public inspection file at WWDR and WDLZ. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating in excess of authorized power is $4000 and the amount for violation of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245206A1.pdf
      • 2003, October 14, 2003, and until January 20, 2004, AT&T Wireless failed to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on structure 1030401 in accordance with its registration requirements. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find AT&T Wireless willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1030401. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245208A1.pdf
      • February 3, 2004, until at least March 12, 2004, FFP failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Florida Food Products, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register with the Commission its antenna structure located at Eustis, Florida. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246119A1.pdf
      • public inspection file material was not made available for inspection during regular business hours at the KUOT-CA (formerly KKCC-LP) main studio. Based on the evidence before us, we find EICB willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to make available for inspection all of the required material in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246120A1.pdf
      • since station KAWV began operation in August of 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find O'Hana Radio Partners willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operational from August 2002, until July 1, 2003. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. Accordingly, the total base forfeiture for failing to have operational EAS equipment for station KAWV is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246121A1.pdf
      • willful and repeated violation of Section 308(b) of the Act, Section 333 of the Act, Section 97.101(d) and 97.101(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence and causing malicious interference and transmitting signals in an attempt to exclusively use a frequency. 17. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, for failure to respond to Commission correspondence is $4,000 and causing interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246122A1.pdf
      • been received or to note problems or malfunctions of the EAS equipment. Based on the evidence before us, we find Concord repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required EAS tests. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246123A1.pdf
      • transmitting equipment at 16743B D Street, Victorville, on the frequency 91.3 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mayo willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 660 kHz and 91.3 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246124A1.pdf
      • that the structure would be registered. As of February 3, 2004, the antenna structure had not been registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dead Air apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246125A1.pdf
      • Ridge, IL 60068-1460 Federal Communications Commission Second Floor 520 NE Colbern Rd Lee's Summit, MO 64086 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 5 k � � � � � tm � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246336A1.pdf
      • license. On January 8 and 13, 2004, Mr. Simon operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 87.6 MHz without the required Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 8 and 13, 2004, Mr. Simon willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246337A1.pdf
      • as required by Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find Sunbelt repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required monthly EAS tests. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246338A1.pdf
      • 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find Moon Broadcasting repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly and weekly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required monthly and weekly EAS tests. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation. The requirement
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246339A1.pdf
      • is issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R, �� 95.603(c), 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission # $ % $ % $ � ] ^ #yJ � � #yJ , �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246523A1.txt
      • ANTENNA ID: 2.4 SF LT 33.60 dBW QPSK 1/2 Rate Digital Data (1.544 Mbs) 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 1M93G7W QPSK 1/2 Rate Digital Data (1.544 Mbs) 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 1M93G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) BOSTON UNIVERSITY E040184 SES-REG-20040419-00565E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Registration Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service 42 � 21 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 890 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, SUFFOLK, BOSTON, MA 71 � 6 ' 56.20 " W LONG. LOCATION: Page 3 of 4 For more information concerning this Notice, contact the Satellite and Radiocommunication Division at 418-0719; TTY 202-418-2555. PRODELIN CORPORATION 1 3.7 meters ANTENNA ID: P40371 DIGITAL AUDIO CARRIER 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 10M3G7W DIGITAL BROADCAST AUDIO
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246524A1.txt
      • Analog Video and Data 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 36M0F8F 66.30 dBW Digital Video and Data 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 25M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Dartmouth College E040127 SES-LIC-20040305-00323E Date Effective: 04/26/2004 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 04/26/2004 - 04/26/2019 Application for Authority Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service 43 � 42 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 7 Lebanon St., Grafton, Hanover, NH 72 � 17 ' 20.20 " W LONG. LOCATION: Prodelin 1 2.4 meters ANTENNA ID: 1244-930 61.10 dBW PSK Digital Video w/digital audio/data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 24M0G7F Page 4 of 15 PSK Digital Video w/ digital audio/data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 24M0G7F Points of Communication: 1 -
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.txt
      • 68.318(c) (Line seizure by automatic telephone dialing systems) and section 68.318(d) (Telephone facsimile machines; Identification of the sender of the message)). ______________________________ RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU (EB) EB Docket No. 04-176 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses forfeiture penalties applicable to common carriers. ______________________________ RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU (IB) IB Docket No. 04-177 Part 23 - International Fixed Public Radio Communication Services - Contains rules applicable to international terrestrial fixed communications systems, including general licensing and application filing requirements, technical standards, and operations. Part 25 - Satellite Communications - Contains rules
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248147A1.txt
      • ANTENNA ID: 3.80PK 76.30 dBW MPEG2, QPSK3/4, DIGITAL VIDEO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 20M0G7F MPEG2, DIGITAL VIDEO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 20M0G7F Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) BOSTON UNIVERSITY E040184 SES-REG-20040419-00565E Date Effective: 06/02/2004 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 04/19/2004 - 04/19/2019 Registration Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service 42 � 21 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 890 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, SUFFOLK, BOSTON, MA 71 � 6 ' 56.20 " W LONG. LOCATION: PRODELIN CORPORATION 1 3.7 meters ANTENNA ID: P40371 DIGITAL AUDIO CARRIER 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 10M3G7W DIGITAL BROADCAST AUDIO CARRIER 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 30K0F1D Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Page 15 of 37 UNIVERSITY OF
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248150A1.pdf
      • using FCC Form 854 upon any change in structure height or change in ownership information. The tower was registered to NYNEX at the time of the light outage Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.48, 17.49, 17.51, and 17.57 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (two counts, FAA and FCC), $1000 for failure maintain required records, and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248151A1.pdf
      • in violation since antenna installation on March 27, 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jarad willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating with an excessive antenna height, thereby failing to operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the authorized antenna height at $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248152A1.pdf
      • in violation since antenna installation on December 22, 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jarad willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating with an excessive antenna height, thereby failing to operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the authorized antenna height at $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248153A1.pdf
      • It further appears that unlicensed operation on 97.9 MHz occurred on more than one day; thus, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that A-O willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 97.9 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for this service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248154A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment.12 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Fred L. Broce District Director, Atlanta Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.409(a), 95.655(a) &2.925(a) 5 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 6 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 7 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) 8 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) 9 See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 10 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 11 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 12 See U.S.C. � 1001 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT BUREAU ATLANTA OFFICE 3575 KOGER BLVD, SUITE 320, DULUTH GA 30096 Telephone (770) 935-3370 � � � � (c) � � � � ���ߌ...�"��� �� �QG㯆�͝t��>e�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248244A1.pdf
      • was never installed on the gate when it was replaced a month prior to re-inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find Beacon Broadcasting, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the station's antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without AM tower fencing at $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248245A1.pdf
      • 302 of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Paladen willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules by offering for sale CB linear amplifiers on February 24, 2004. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment at seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248246A1.pdf
      • 20, 2003, January 6, 2004, and January 17, 2004, without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequency 87.9 MHz in Linden, NJ. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248247A1.pdf
      • on more than one day; thus it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 8, 2003, and June 9, 2003, Mallard willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules by operating a cable system in violation of signal leakage standards. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248248A1.pdf
      • willful. The operation at more than the 105% operating power appears to have occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RBC repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(b) by exceeding the STA authorized power limits for stations KOBB-FM and KZLO-FM. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location is $4000. Also, according to Section 1.80, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248483A1.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit n n n � � � � n FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: June 18, 2004 Janice Wise (202) 418-7450 FCC ADJUSTS MAXIMUM FORFEITURE PENALTIES TO REFLECT INFLATION Washington, D.C.-The Federal Communications Commission has amended Section 1.80(b) of its Rules to increase the maximum monetary forfeiture penalties available to it. This action implements the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. � 2461, which requires federal agencies to adjust maximum statutory civil monetary penalties at least once every four years to reflect inflation. The amendment of Section 1.80(b) will be effective 30 days after publication in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248613A1.pdf
      • the frequency of 154.490 MHz. Agents observed mobile units operating on 159.950 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Caprice willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating mobile units on February 4, 2004, and February 5, 2004, on an unauthorized frequency of 159.950 MHz. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. Denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248614A1.pdf
      • the bands indistinguishable at a distance of one-fourth of a mile from the structure and resulting in poor visibility of the structure's obstruction markings. Based on the evidence before us, we find Andrews Tower willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint antenna structure number 1058251 to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure markings is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248615A1.pdf
      • regular business hours at the WDIN main studio. Based on the evidence before us, we find HQ willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the station's main studio and failing to make available for inspection all of the required materials in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249189A1.pdf
      • co-located stations WHNC and WCBQ. Based on the evidence before us, we find TPN willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain required EAS equipment and by failing to make available for inspection the complete public inspection file(s), at WHNC and WCBQ. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS equipment is $8,000 and the amount for violation of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249189A1_Erratum.doc
      • co-located stations WHNC and WCBQ. Based on the evidence before us, we find TPN willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain required EAS equipment and by failing to make available for inspection the complete public inspection file(s), at WHNC and WCBQ. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS equipment is $8,000 and the amount for violation of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249191A1.pdf
      • to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b), 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a), 15.209. 47 C.F.R. � 2.925. 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. �� 401, 501, 503 and 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � $ #yJ #yJ ܴ �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
      • Revenues per Minute 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Percent Change 1997 to 2002 Australia $1.32 $1.25 $1.09 $1.01 $0.68 $0.30 $0.42 $0.55 $0.51 $0.38 $0.27 -10.3% Brazil 1.13 1.06 0.97 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.67 0.57 0.45 0.25 0.22 -69.2 Canada 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 -37.6 China 2.02 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 -79.0 Colombia 1.15 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 -77.0 Dominican Republic 0.97 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 -73.9 Egypt 1.33 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 -73.3 El Salvador 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249273A1.pdf
      • violation has occurred on more than one day, thus, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ackerley willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure #1040111. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249274A1.pdf
      • lighting for at least ``approximately four years until the present.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that Northwest repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to conform to the FAA's dual lighting requirements as set forth in the FAA Notice for antenna structure # 1023331. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249275A1.pdf
      • is issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � �2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R, �� 95.603(c), 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ L #yJ � � #yJ , �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249276A1.pdf
      • to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b), 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a), 15.209. 47 C.F.R. � 2.925. 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. �� 401, 501, 503 and 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � $ #yJ #yJ �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249516A1.pdf
      • determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 18.115(a). 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. �� 401, 501, 503 and 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � � � $ ' ( @ A f g � � � � (c) � " � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250101A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find Konarz willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, operating with excessive power and failing to discontinue operation at sunset, and failing to make available for inspection all of the required materials in the station's public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for operation with excessive power and failure to discontinue operation after sunset is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250102A1.pdf
      • May 12 and 13, 2004, WROX(AM)'s antenna structure was not enclosed by an effective locked fence or enclosure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Delta willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to maintain effective fencing around its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250390A1.pdf
      • was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Farmworker, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) and (e) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio and failing to maintain a local phone number in its community of license or a toll-free number. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements, is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251001A1.pdf
      • Mr. Brandon Smith Mr. John Jackson d.b.a. Wholesale CB Radio 1032 Birch Sand Springs, OK 74063 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 � � ' , C i j � ` `` - � � � �(� � � � � � � � � � � � � 7� � 9 z � � 9 z
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251489A1.pdf
      • was not among those frequencies. Prolink acknowledged to a Commission field agent that it intentionally used the unlicensed frequency because of interference problems with other channels. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Prolink willfully violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on an unauthorized frequency. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251831A1.pdf
      • find that Snow Hill willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(6), 73.3526(e)(8), 73.3526(e)(9), and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Commission's Rules by failing to retain in its public inspection file a political file, ``The Public and Broadcasting'' manual, letters and e-mail from the public, and any quarterly issues/programs lists for 2003. . Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252185A1.pdf
      • for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Venture willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.947 and 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to obtain Commission approval prior to relocating and operating microwave STL stations WPNJ965, WPTM693, WPTC301 and WNTR571. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each incident of construction or operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252523A1.pdf
      • evidence, we find that the Capstar willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the RFR MPE limits for the general public in a publicly accessible area and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing an area that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules. We propose the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252867A1.pdf
      • its antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lotus repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, 17.48, and 17.49 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1015922. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252868A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Morongo Basin Broadcasting Corporation repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the station was in operation. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-252869A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Three D Radio repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the stations were in operation. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, sets the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's Rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be for this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253039A1.pdf
      • around November 30, 1998. However, Shadavrus did not notify the Commission of this change in ownership until March 10, 2004. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Shadavrus willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify immediately the Commission upon a change in ownership information for an antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253692A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Hi-Favor repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the station was in operation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring transmission of the weekly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253693A1.pdf
      • J. Massie, Jr. H and Y Electrical Supply Company, Inc. P.O. Box 39322 Louisville, KY 40233 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 O  � � " ( ) + - / 0 1 2 5 J K N O � � � � � @� h[ h[ gd[ gd[ gd[ gd[ + , + , �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254041A1.pdf
      • 74578-9615 Mr. Jason F. Lawrence Total Communications CB Radio Trader 1210 Battles Rd Wilburton, OK 74578 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 # $ & ( 8 9 ; < > ? ( U � � � ? @ F G R S T U � ... � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254042A1.pdf
      • Federal Communications Commission 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1215 Tampa, FL 33607-2356 Resident agents Miami, FL 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 t u 8 > ? C E F G v ,v z { � � � � ' `` '' � � � � (c) � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254043A1.pdf
      • to this notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent Houston Office Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) Id. See also 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), 2.803(a)(2). 47 U.S.C. �301 See 47 C.F.R. �� 15.1 et seq Id. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b) 47 U.S.C. � 333 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) 47 C.F.R. � 15.209 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 o p q r � � � q s �� � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254256A1.pdf
      • will cease immediately upon notification of a violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jean L. Senatus willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 96.1 MHz on April 7, 2004, and April 17, 2004, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254257A1.pdf
      • radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization on frequency 95.3 MHz. . Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Gentile willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on the frequency 107.7 MHz in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 6, 2004. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio transmitter without a valid authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254258A1.pdf
      • to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Please direct any questions regarding this matter to Reuben Jusino at XXX XXX-XXXX or XXX XXX-XXXX. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent-San Juan Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 C.F.R. � 2.925. 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. �� 401, 501, 503 and 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ � - � (R) � � #yJ #yJ #yJ #yJ #yJ #yJ #yJ #yJ #yJ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������ �� tg �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254259A1.pdf
      • Mr. Clay Allen Thompson d.b.a. Clay's Little Radio Shop 3972 Lazy Bend Rd. Millsap, TX 76066-3823 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 ! " . 1 3 4 6 8 9 : ; O S W X Y Z f g s � � � ' � � � " Z ' � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254542A1.pdf
      • M.B. Communications, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1),and 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to enclose the WYLF tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure and failing to insure WYLF was operating at the authorized modes of power specified and made part of the license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254543A1.pdf
      • Clamor Broadcasting Network Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to have installed the required EAS equipment and for not maintaining the station's studio within its community of license, within the principal community contour or within twenty-five miles from the reference coordinates of the center of its community of license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to have installed the required EAS equipment is eight thousand dollars ($8,000) and for main studio violations is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254544A1.pdf
      • required to know which frequencies he is permitted to operate on. The frequency 297.530 MHz is not one of those frequencies. However, Silva continually operated on the frequency 297.530 MHz without authorization. Therefore, Silva's violation was willful. His violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255039A1.pdf
      • January 30, 2002, TV 45 Productions, Inc., willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed at station KLHU-CA so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available and by failing to conduct the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255040A1.pdf
      • transmitting and monitoring capabilities during the time the stations are in operation. On February 6, 2003, Southern had no EAS equipment installed at station WENA-AM. Based on the evidence before us, we find Southern willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to have installed equipment capable of monitoring and transmitting the EAS system. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have installed EAS equipment is $8000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255041A1.pdf
      • resulting delay in this case has compromised the Bureau's ability to respond to the complaints presented in an effective, appropriate and timely manner. Accordingly, we find Mr. Westcott apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Paul D. Westcott, is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond in writing to Commission correspondence. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release of this NOTICE OF
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255042A1.pdf
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gerritsen willfully and repeatedly violated Section 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the radio communications of authorized users of the Amateur Radio Service. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for causing interference to licensed stations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255233A1.pdf
      • levels, specified in the license the FCC issues to the station. TCB operated its radio station WBRG with daytime power during the evening of February 27, 2002, and during pre-sunrise on February 28, 2002. Based on the evidence before us, we find TCB, willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating with excessive power. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for excessive power operation is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255235A1.pdf
      • of these pieces of equipment were FCC Certified. Based on the evidence before us, we find Halifax willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to install and maintain EAS equipment and operating overpower with a non-certified transmitter from an unauthorized location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts are as follows: failure to install EAS equipment, $8,000; use of unauthorized equipment, $5,000; exceeding power limits, $4,000; and construction or operation at an unauthorized location, $4,000.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255236A1.pdf
      • than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ACS willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in the ownership information for Antenna Structure Registration (``ASR'') numbers #1022129 and #1006025. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255237A1.pdf
      • and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and by failing to notify FAA regarding the on-going light outage on antenna structure 1019797 in Knik, Alaska as required. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. The base amount for failing to file required information is $3000. We find that failing to notify the FAA of an outage constitutes a failure to file required
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255238A1.pdf
      • we find Coleman willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and (e), 73.1740(a)(1) and 73.1745(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain main studios, local or toll-free telephone numbers, and minimum operating schedules, for both KAXX and KADX, and for departing, without authorization, from the terms of the stations' authorizations. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain a main studio and a toll-free phone numbers is $7,000 per station, total for this violation is $14,000 and; for failing to maintain a minimum broadcast schedule and unauthorized discontinuance of operation is $5000 per
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255239A1.pdf
      • Federal Communications Commission Park Ridge Office Center, Suite 306 1550 Northwest Highway Park Ridge, IL 60068-1460 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c) 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b) See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) � � - / 0 1 2 R Y ] _ ` a � � ` � - � � � � � (R) � � &� � � � 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 Y Z � � ? �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255477A1.pdf
      • on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Schikora and the Horner Trust willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure #1005017. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255478A1.pdf
      • the violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Butterfield willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the KULE AM antenna tower within an effective enclosed fence. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255963A1.pdf
      • Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and First Class U.S. Mail to Gene A. Fricke, 102 East Hollis Street, APT 4A, Nashua, NH 03060 FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis Loria District Director Boston Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a) 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. �552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. �1001 f g �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255966A1.pdf
      • until after August 17, 2004, more than a month after their first oral warning. Thus, we find that Entravision also apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by producing power density levels in excess of its occupational limit and failing to warn adequately workers of the RFR hazard. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules. In assessing the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255967A1.pdf
      • into compliance, according to Section 1.1307 of our Rules. Based on the evidence, we find that Infinity produced power density levels more than 5% of its general population and occupational limits and failed to bring the areas into compliance in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules. In assessing the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255968A1.pdf
      • climber to levels of RFR exceeding the occupational/controlled MPE limit. Based on the evidence before us, we find that the Cumulus apparently willfully violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules on June 5, 2003, by exposing the tower climber to levels of RFR exceeding the occupational/controlled MPE limit permitted by the Commission. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, we previously determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules. We propose the $10,000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255969A1.pdf
      • if any, enforcement action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office Northeast Region 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � �15.5(b) and 15.5(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � #yJ � � #yJ , � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256119A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Source willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna and by failing to maintain the lighting of its antenna structure. We also find, based on the evidence before us, that Source willfully and repeatedly failed to respond to Commission correspondence. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information; ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking; and four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256120A1.pdf
      • Alpine's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Alpine, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), by failing to maintain a meaningful managerial and staff presence at the KWYS main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256484A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Gerritsen apparently willfully violated Sections 321(b) and 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the radio communications of a Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer while he attempted to use the amateur frequencies to contact a sailing vessel in distress. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for causing interference to licensed stations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256485A1.pdf
      • transmit the required monthly and weekly tests. Consequently, Lazer's violation was willful. Lazer's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lazer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256582A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Visionary apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the public RFR MPE limits in a publicly accessible area and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing an area that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. 14. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules. 15. We propose
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256583A1.pdf
      • 12, 2004. Therefore, his violation is willful. Mollenido's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mollinedo apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 90.9 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257047A1.pdf
      • violation of the Commission's Rules. Furthermore, Mr.Dacres has been warned orally and in writing of the possible penalties for unlicensed operation of the station on several occasions. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Samuel E. Dacres willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,6 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257048A1.pdf
      • structure with the Commission. On February 27, 2004, WBLT admitted that it had never registered its antenna structure. On March 1, 2004, WBLT obtained registration number 1242296 for its WBLT tower. Based on the evidence before us, we find WBLT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257049A1.pdf
      • if any, enforcement action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent-San Juan 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b), 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 C.F.R. � 2.925. 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. �� 401, 501, 503 and 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission S E Q R T V W g i n o p t y � � � - � � � � � � � DS T $ N P Q P Q S
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257050A1.pdf
      • our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office JAB:PRB 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1) 47 C.F.R. � 95.603(c). See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c), 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) see 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) see 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579. 5 U.S.C. � 552(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � $ #yJ �� � ^�� #yJ �: �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257051A1.pdf
      • Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 U.S.C. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 U.S.C. � 95.655(a) 47 U.S.C. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 U.S.C. � 1.80(b0(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau Los Angeles Office 18000 Studebaker Road Suite 660 Los Angeles, CA 90703 � � ' ���A&3+"� ou "�KY"5_5]'G�",��P����( )�׷ � �L� ��|�',�1��� ���.T7�ʬ�,aYi� �zn����� ){I���+]��Y~...�"7@�) &��ue�>� �����j``xAC� ��(Wig�=���tm��b��=W
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257052A1.pdf
      • Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 U.S.C. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 U.S.C. � 95.655(a) 47 U.S.C. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 U.S.C. � 1.80(b0(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau Los Angeles Office 18000 Studebaker Road Suite 660 Los Angeles, CA 90703 � � �C��a�M�*[�*K*�� G3�h"��''� x� � sF� CV-T�A/N�%.R���s;� !� �+5P;� U��� �c-_��� �J��ރ��aE-��а̪q?�=["O$!��� =p��ȭ� ����qo���� r...
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257053A1.pdf
      • Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 U.S.C. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 U.S.C. � 95.655(a) 47 U.S.C. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 U.S.C. � 1.80(b0(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau Los Angeles Office 18000 Studebaker Road Suite 660 Los Angeles, CA 90703 � � h h gd �e �7��x"kxq ^e o ����"�b4�O-��X� x� � sF� CV-T�Q/N�%.R���s;� 4�0�gs7�^��)y���Ye�) �K
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257054A1.pdf
      • Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 U.S.C. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 U.S.C. � 95.655(a) 47 U.S.C. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 U.S.C. � 1.80(b0(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau Los Angeles Office 18000 Studebaker Road Suite 660 Los Angeles, CA 90703 � � d��{ s�W'�*�w�����u��ԣuD�A�:qS 7|x_ �P���n��''��ۆO� x� � �$��m�(2}�ܷ� p�!�y�z(R)$;$=W㏹;�...��^tm��%,+ � '� ��4Wf�=\��k-%�ΟS1-1���ؼ��M ! ų>� �k
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257055A1.pdf
      • Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 U.S.C. � 2.803(a)(1) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) See 47 U.S.C. �� 95.603(c) & 2.803 47 U.S.C. � 95.655(a) 47 U.S.C. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 See 47 U.S.C. � 1.80(b0(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau Los Angeles Office 18000 Studebaker Road Suite 660 Los Angeles, CA 90703 � � ��������������������������"�����"�"�������������"�������"��"��� ���A&3+"� d��; s�(c)W'�*�������u���``uD�A�:q[ 7|x_ �P���n��''��"�O� ]�-Ea�k � �``0E��a2�|�Y� q�ψ�)p�^D9) '� \��k-%�ΟS1-1���м��M �c-_��� D�B��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257373A1.pdf
      • admitted that it had been operating on those frequencies for approximately ten years. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Driscoll apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment without authorization on the frequencies 462.625 MHz and 467.625 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257374A1.pdf
      • monthly and weekly tests, therefore, Guerrero's violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Guerrero apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257375A1.pdf
      • Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � �2.803(a)(1) 47 C.F.R. � 95.603(c). See 47 C.F.R, �� 95.603(c), 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission D � � � � & / D F L [ c d e f o x � � � � � � � � � he B� � � � � � he
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257559A1.pdf
      • on April 29, 1999 for failure to register its antenna structure, the structure was not registered with the Commission until December 27, 2004. We therefore find that Forsberg apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, as required by Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257560A1.pdf
      • on 31.02 MHz on August 18, 2004, August 23, 2004, and September 13, 2004. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Classic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a base station and mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 31.02 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257948A1.pdf
      • station on the frequency 465.63125 MHz in New York, NY. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Universal willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 465.63125 MHz on March 23, 2004 and March 24, 2004 without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257949A1.pdf
      • license, did not include the GMRS frequency 462.625 MHz and was cancelled on June 10, 2004. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pembroke willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating two-way radio transmitters on GMRS frequency 465.625 MHz without a license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257950A1.pdf
      • of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Bill Burnham at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent, Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ � ... N � � � � 2 3 4 V W X Y e ... '' � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258044A1.pdf
      • did not have a license to operate this station and does not qualify to be licensed by rule. Mr. Kennedy subsequently admitted to the unlicensed operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on November 13, 2004, Mr. Kennedy willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on 157.025 MHz. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258045A1.pdf
      • did not have a license to operate this station and does not qualify to be licensed by rule. Mr. McKinney subsequently admitted to the unlicensed operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on November 13, 2004, Mr. McKinney willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on 156.325 MHz. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258046A1.pdf
      • antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AMFM Ohio apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1014752. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258048A1.pdf
      • COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 95.603(c). See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c), 2.803. 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � $ U #yJ �� � ^�� #yJ �: U g �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258186A1.pdf
      • admitted that Antenna Structures #1040052, 1040053, and 1040054 had never been painted or lit. On January 25, 2005, agents confirmed that the antenna structures were not painted or lit. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mega Communications willfully violated Section 17.21 of the Rules by failing to comply with antenna structure painting and lighting specifications. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed painting and lighting specifications is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258187A1.pdf
      • the structures. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vector apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on structures 1204872, 1204873 and 1204874. Moreover, Vector must submit a statement detailing the steps taken to repair structures 1204872, 1204873 and 1204874 within thirty days. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258870A1.pdf
      • and mobile units without an FCC license. Based on the evidence before us, we find Bee Taxi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 155.970 MHz and 155.190 MHz on September 15, and September 23, 2004 without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258871A1.pdf
      • and between 8:30 p.m. and 9:32 p.m. on July 29, 2004. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WTMR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels, in direct contravention of its station authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258872A1.pdf
      • were also missing. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Twenty-One Sound apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a), and 73.3526(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an operational EAS system, failing to maintain a main studio for Station KNSX(FM), and failing to maintain a public inspection file as required by the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the listed violations are: $8,000 for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment; $7,000 for a violation of a main studio rule; and $10,000 for failure to maintain a public inspection file consistent with the Rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258873A1.pdf
      • assigned TV channel 49. From approximately January 1, 2005 to January 21, 2005, station WKNI-LP/W49BM operated on TV channel 25. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Loflin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating the station WKNI-LP/W49BM on an unauthorized frequency. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258874A1.pdf
      • transmitter. The Commission's records showed that Mr. Riels did not have a license to operate this station and does not qualify to be licensed by rule. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on December 8, 2004, Mr. Riels willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on 156.875 MHz. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258875A1.pdf
      • operation. Therefore, Bustos' violation is willful. Bustos' violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bustos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating KZNY at times outside of the KZNY station authorizations. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258876A1.pdf
      • Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 18.115(a). ISM equipment is defined as ``[e]quipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally RF energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding applications in the field of telecommunication.'' 47 C.F.R. � 18.107(c). 47 C.F.R. � 18.107(b). 47 C.F.R. � 18.115(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 C.F.R. � 18.117. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). This is in addition to the report required by Section 18.117, referenced above. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ 7 8 h' 5 6 7 8 ; H
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259063A1.pdf
      • could be easily altered for use on CB frequencies. Accordingly, the Connex 3300HP is a CB transceiver that cannot be certified under the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hightech apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259158A1.pdf
      • Manager stated that he did not know what time the station's automated system changed to the nighttime power level. Based on this evidence, we find that Ingstad apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain the antenna input power at the authorized level. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259301A1.pdf
      • of the Rules. The continuous transmissions of the same pre-recorded phrase and segments thereof, and the abrupt ending of those transmissions in mid-sentence without identification, suggests that Mr. Baxter did not exercise control of his station. We conclude that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully violated Section 97.105(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for willful or malicious interference, $3,000 for failure to file required information, and $3,000 for violation of transmitter control. There are no base forfeiture amounts for violations of the rules prohibiting broadcasting or pecuniary interest in Part
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259803A1.pdf
      • 5, 2005. Therefore, his violation is willful. Major's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Major apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 96.5 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259912A1.pdf
      • lying to the side of the access road, thus allowing unimpeded access to the property. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Vera-Maury apparently willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose his antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to provide effective AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259913A1.pdf
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to FairPoint Communications, Inc., 521 E. Morehead Street Suite 250, Charlotte, NC 28202. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 15.5. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h{7 � � h{7 h� G H j k l m } � � � � � � � � � � � � � � {7
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260117A1.pdf
      • and, consequently, numerous RMTs and RWTs were not received or transmitted. Therefore, Farmworkers' violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Farmworkers Educational Radio Network, Inc., apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KCEC-FM. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260383A1.txt
      • New Skies 806 - (319.5 E.L.) 1 - NSS-5 - (183 E.L.) KA262 SES-MOD-20050726-00977E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Modification INTELSAT NORTH AMERICA LLC Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service "MOD" to change regulatory classification of earth station from Common Carrier to Non-Common Carrier Service Only. 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260406A1.pdf
      • into compliance with the Commission's Part 15 rules. He nevertheless continued to operate the station without a license and without coming into compliance with the Part 15 rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Simon willfully and repeatedly( violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an AM radio transmitter without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),( the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260407A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Sims apparently willfully violated Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) (CB Rule 26) of the Rules by operating a CB radio station without Commission authorization and refusing to allow an inspection of his CB station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. The base amount for failure to permit inspection of a CB radio station is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260457A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day. Therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that TravelCenters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale a non-certified CB transceiver. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260541A1.pdf
      • granted. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ms. Salazar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526(e) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260730A1.pdf
      • 28, 2004, Parks did not deny that the issues/programs lists were missing from WEKC's public inspection file on the date of the inspection. We therefore find that Parks apparently willfully and repeatedly failed to maintain the issues/programs list in the public file, as required by Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information and is set at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to maintain items in the public inspection file. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260731A1.pdf
      • of no hazard and more than a year after the structure was required to be registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arcom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to register antenna structure #1249670, located in Blue Mountain, St.Croix, USVI. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260886A1.txt
      • ALSAT - (ALSAT) KA262 SES-MOD-20050726-00977E Date Effective: 09/06/2005 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 03/31/1999 - 03/31/2009 Application for Modification Intelsat North America LLC Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service "MOD" to change regulatory classification of earth station from Common Carrier to Non-Common Carrier Service Only. 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260946A1.pdf
      • that the station installed the non-directional antenna with no vertical component earlier in April. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Family apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260947A1.pdf
      • by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of its station authorization. We also find that West Coast apparently willfully violated Section 73.1560(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain the transmitter output power of its FM station as near as practicable to the authorized power. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. There is no base forfeiture amount for installing an antenna in a manner that is not authorized by the station authorization, and, consequently, changing its coverage area. We conclude, however, that violation of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260948A1.pdf
      • Broadcasting'' manual and the radio issues/programs list. Based on the evidence before us, we find GB Enterprises apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to enclose its antenna structures within effective locked fences and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing (failure to enclose antenna structures within effective locked fences) is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). Although the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000), because WHNR-AM's public file
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260949A1.pdf
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � �2.803(a)(1) 47 C.F.R. � 95.603(c) See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c); 47 C.F.R. 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission he . C W � \ � � \ - . / 5 6 ; C P k m q r w x } � � � � `` - � tm � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
      • Billed Revenues per Minute 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Percent Change 1998 to 2003 Australia $1.25 $1.09 $1.01 $0.68 $0.30 $0.42 $0.55 $0.51 $0.38 $0.27 $0.25 -39.9% Brazil 1.06 0.97 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.67 0.57 0.45 0.25 0.22 0.14 -78.8 Canada 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.16 -48.4 China 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 0.18 -80.5 Colombia 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 0.11 -85.2 Dominican Republic 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.16 -64.7 Egypt 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 0.21 -78.8 El Salvador 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261123A1.pdf
      • January 29, 2005. This letter was not returned to the Dallas Office. To date, however, Unique has not filed the required response. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Unique apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 308(b) of the Act by failing to respond to Commission correspondence. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261709A1.pdf
      • considerable time. In addition, the tower was not protected by a property fence. Based on this evidence, we find that WSMN apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose one of its three antenna structures within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations at Broadcast stations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261710A1.pdf
      • first installed in 2000. Therefore, Anderson's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Anderson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261711A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ICB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on an unauthorized microwave channel of 21585.0 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261712A1.pdf
      • on August 9, 2005. Therefore, Kojo's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kojo apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261713A1.pdf
      • its violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Krieger apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on an unauthorized frequency of 21375.0 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261714A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lamkin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on the unauthorized microwave channel of 21245.0 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261715A1.pdf
      • in 2004. Therefore, More Enterprises' violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that More Enterprises apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261716A1.pdf
      • March 2005. Therefore, Pacific Spanish's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Spanish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261717A1.pdf
      • station in question, however, Pacnet apparently continues to operate the station. We will therefore direct Pacnet to file a report with the District Director of the San Diego Office detailing whether Pacnet is continuing to operate the microwave station described in this NAL and pursuant to what authority. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261718A1.pdf
      • not appear to have a license to operate the microwave station in question, we will direct Pacnet to file a report with the District Director of the San Diego Office detailing whether Pacnet is continuing to operate the microwave station described in this NAL and pursuant to what authority. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261719A1.pdf
      • violations occurred on more than one day, therefore, they were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tocabi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on an unauthorized frequency of 22455.0 MHz and at an unauthorized location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261720A1.pdf
      • installed in May 2004. Therefore, Uniradio's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Uniradio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261721A1.pdf
      • to Chad Jolley at his address of record and to the Beavis CB & PC Shop. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Fred L. Broce District Director Atlanta Office FCC Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1) and 2.815(b) & (c). 47 C.F.R � 95.655(a). 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h� h� h� h� h� h� $ & O Q Y y z { | (c) " � � � h� h� . Y � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261768A1.pdf
      • the Rules by failing to comply with the main studio location requirements. In addition, we direct Southern Media to provide a written description of the steps it has taken to correct these violations within 30 days. We will determine at that time whether additional enforcement action should be taken. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts are: $8,000 for EAS equipment not installed or operational, $10,000 for violation of public file rules, $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, $4,000 for construction and operation at unauthorized location (Broadcast Transmitter), and $4,000 for construction
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261931A1.pdf
      • antenna tower having radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000. Although the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262093A1.pdf
      • Sections 1.903(a) and (b), Sections 90.429(a) and (b), and Section 90.425(a) of the Rules by operating its private land mobile station in direct contravention of its station authorization, by failing to properly identify the Amherst station, and by failing to maintain a station control point for the Amherst station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is four thousand dollars ($4,000) for operating on an unauthorized frequency, one thousand dollars ($1,000) for failing to provide a station identification, and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for violation of transmitter control requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262187A1.pdf
      • or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to St. Theresa's Nursing Home at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.109. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission + , J Q `` '' � � � - i j k � � � � � � � � � i j k � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262291A1.pdf
      • In the reply to the NOV, BCR stated that the violation had been corrected and the lists were now in the station's public file. Based on this evidence, we find that BCR apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violations of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262292A1.pdf
      • station's complete public inspection file upon request during regular business hours. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Willis apparently willfully violated Sections 73.1560(b) and 73.3526(a) of the Rules by operating more than 140% overpower and failing to make available for inspection a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. However, because Willis' public file was mostly complete and missing only two items, we conclude a reduction in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262293A1.pdf
      • inspection file is now complete. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Willis apparently willfully violated Sections 73.1560(a)(1) and 73.3526(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain its authorized antenna input power and failing to make material required to be in the public file available for inspection. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits and for violation of public file rules is $4,000 and $10,000, respectively. However, because Willis' public file was partially complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262294A1.pdf
      • day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nextel apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to light antenna structure #1245078 in accordance with the specifications set forth on the structure's FAA determination and its antenna structure registration. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262295A1.pdf
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Richard A. & Joann R. Peterson, Joint Tenants, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of KBSZ(AM)'s EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262296A1.pdf
      • Diamond's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Red Diamond apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WPIY355, on 151.520 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262407A1.pdf
      • repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. We also admonish Trap Rock for failing to post an antenna structure registration number at the base of its tower in violation of Section 17.4(g). Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262408A1.pdf
      • outage that required more than 30 minutes to correct. TC employees only notified the FAA of a lighting outage on June 5, 2005. Based on the evidence before us, we find that TC apparently willfully violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to comply with prescribed lighting requirements. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262555A1.pdf
      • COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 95.603(c). See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c), 2.803. 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. h� ) 4 X \ k n p q u � � � 7 '' � � ... � ' '' � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262933A1.txt
      • POR - (180.0 E.L.) REMOTE 1 - INTELSAT AOR - (307.0 E.L.) KA262 SES-MOD-20051209-01769E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Modification INTELSAT LLC Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service Intelsat LLC herein requests a modification of its current license for earth station KA262 to add 2000 remote terminals on board vessels. 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262937A1.pdf
      • for some period of time and that he had notified station management in April, 2005. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Corry Communications Corporation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at WWCB. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is set at eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262938A1.pdf
      • we find that Moises Cabrera and Juan Cabrera apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 89.7 MHz in New York, NY on December 29, 2004, and March 3, March 7, March 8, and May 5, 2005, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262939A1.pdf
      • therefore was willful. Because the violation continued for more than one day, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WSKQ and WPAT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") by failing to maintain operational Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262940A1.pdf
      • on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Time Warner Cable, Inc., apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to ensure that antenna structure #1240108 was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262941A1.pdf
      • station was unauthorized, her violation is willful. Craig's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Craig apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 106.9 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262942A1.pdf
      • have the required labeling. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clegg apparently repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules by importing and marketing a non-authorized radio frequency device. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importing or marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262943A1.pdf
      • District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b), 15.5(c). See Letter from Mr. Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Jim Humphrey, dated February 23, 2005. See Letter from Mr. Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Jim Humphrey, dated March 29, 2005. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ � � Y Z � � � 5W � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262944A1.pdf
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to COP-USA, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 C.F.R. � 2.925. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission hqH hqH hqH hqH hqH � � � � � � � � hS � � � � ^� qH 9 S �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262945A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to COP-USA Inc. at 15346 E. Valley Blvd., City of Industry, CA 91746. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 C.F.R. � 2.925 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � (� � k � k m ^ _ j k � ^� �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
      • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Dist. of Columbia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Florida 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.45 0.03 0.64 Georgia 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.46 0.27 0.26 1.87 Guam 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.10 0.00 0.00 5.16 Hawaii 0.51 (0.00) 0.00 0.01 0.47 0.24 0.13 1.36 Idaho 2.40 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.74 1.80 0.90 6.06 Illinois 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.55 Indiana 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.56 0.19 1.23 Iowa 0.72 0.05 0.00 0.23 1.13 0.28 1.05 3.47 Kansas 3.26 0.03 0.00 0.29 1.42 0.38 0.67 6.06 Kentucky 0.69 0.01 0.62 0.10 0.47 0.64 0.18 2.70 Louisiana 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.58 0.34 0.22 3.39 Maine 0.76 0.00 0.18
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
      • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Dist. of Columbia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Florida 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.45 0.03 0.64 Georgia 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.46 0.27 0.26 1.87 Guam 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.10 0.00 0.00 5.16 Hawaii 0.51 (0.00) 0.00 0.01 0.47 0.24 0.13 1.36 Idaho 2.40 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.74 1.80 0.90 6.06 Illinois 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.55 Indiana 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.56 0.19 1.23 Iowa 0.72 0.05 0.00 0.23 1.13 0.28 1.05 3.47 Kansas 3.26 0.03 0.00 0.29 1.42 0.38 0.67 6.06 Kentucky 0.69 0.01 0.62 0.10 0.47 0.64 0.18 2.70 Louisiana 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.58 0.34 0.22 3.39 Maine 0.76 0.00 0.18
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263107A1.pdf
      • is 304 feet and therefore Conneaut was required to register the tower with the Commission. The tower remained unregistered until November 18, 2005. Accordingly, we find that Conneaut apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, as required by Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263335A1.pdf
      • during the course of an inspection and investigation, authorized by the Act and the Rules, There is no base forfeiture amount for refusing to conduct a requested test during an inspection. We conclude, however, that this violation is similar to a violation that involves failing to permit inspection, which, pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, carries a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for each such violation. Failure to perform tests requested during an inspection effectively negates the value of the inspection, because it prevents the agents from obtaining necessary information from the inspection. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263336A1.pdf
      • period of almost three months. Therefore, T-Mobile's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that T-Mobile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating microwave radio stations without authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263337A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that CRC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49, and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure registration, lighting, monitoring, record keeping, and notification requirements for antenna structure #1019247. 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information, such as an antenna structure registration,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263338A1.pdf
      • COMMISSION John E. Rahtes District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5. An incidental radiator is a device that generates radio frequency energy during the course of its operation even though the device is not intentionally designed to generate or emit radio frequency energy. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 6 - } } } �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263339A1.pdf
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Nathan Dauchy at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � (c) � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263340A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Sapp Bros. Truck Stops, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 C.F.R. � 2.925 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � *� � � � ^� �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263341A1.pdf
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Jason Katlenbach, d/b/a Metamerchant, at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R � 2.803(a) 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission i j � $ S b u v w x ` � � � � x ` � x x � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263483A1.pdf
      • operated his CB station inconsistent with the Rules, he was not authorized to operate pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Fricke apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a CB radio station without Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263484A1.pdf
      • operating the radio transmitting equipment. Moreover, Mr. Marius has been warned verbally and in writing of the possible penalties for unlicensed operation of the station on several occasions. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Marius willfully and repeatedly5 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263649A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Gerritsen apparently willfully violated Sections 321(b) and 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the radio communications of a Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer while he attempted to use the amateur frequencies to contact a sailing vessel in distress. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for causing interference to licensed stations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263650A1.pdf
      • 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a base station on an unauthorized frequency of 35.32 MHz, by operating mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 36.34 MHz, and by operating its low-band and mid-band transmitters with an output power in excess of the power specified in its station license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263779A1.pdf
      • equipment. Therefore, KPAL's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KPAL Television Inc., apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of KPAL's EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263780A1.pdf
      • these transmitters, therefore, its violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ESP apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a land mobile radio transmitter without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263781A1.pdf
      • and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna lighting, monitoring, notification and registration requirements specified for antenna structure #1041257, and for failing to comply with the registration requirements for antenna structure #1041256. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264046A1.pdf
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Loves' violations is $21,000. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that radio
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264049A1.pdf
      • sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to 2by2security.com at 1125 N. McCadden Place, Suite 108, Los Angeles, CA 90038. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 U.S.C. �� 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h y h & ' y { h $y h h X � � � � � y (c) � � (c) � � � ^� � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264149A1.pdf
      • applications to individually register the towers until after the follow-up inspection by FCC agents on March 24, 2005. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Renda apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register individually each of its WJAS antenna structures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264150A1.pdf
      • in use. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Brasfield & Gorrie apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a) and 90.425(a) of the Rules by failing to operate their station in accordance with their station authorizations (operating on an unauthorized frequency) and failing to identify their station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and failing to provide station identification is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264273A1.pdf
      • is willful. Toussaint's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Toussaint apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section� 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license on 102.9 MHz in Mattapan, MA. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264407A1.pdf
      • to three of the antenna structures in WBGG's directional antenna array were not locked. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AMFM Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose antenna structures 1034050, 1034051, and 1034052 within effective locked fences. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an AM fencing violation is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264408A1.pdf
      • 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 127, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.1745, and willfully violated Section 73.3526(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio, operating overpower during night time hours and having no public file available. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount are $7,000 for failing to maintain a main studio, $4,000 for exceeding power limits and $10,000 for violation of public file rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264409A1.pdf
      • maintained for the duration of the license period. Therefore, Cortaro's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264507A1.pdf
      • one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vance apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 2.815(c) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers and an non-certified external RF power amplifiers. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264508A1.pdf
      • willful. Caballeros' violations occurred on more than one day, therefore, they were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Caballero apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of EAS equipment used by KMMA-CA, KQMM-CA, and KVMM-CA. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to ensure EAS Equipment operational readiness is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264509A1.pdf
      • for the duration of the license period. Therefore, KM TV's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264726A1.pdf
      • that no one had been stationed at the Wurtsboro studio since some time in 2004. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a management and staff presence at the WZAD main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264727A1.pdf
      • of the missing material was ever in place. Therefore, Entravision's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264728A1.pdf
      • violation is willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Scrugham apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license on 100.3 MHz in Kamiah, Idaho. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264848A1.pdf
      • Gambler's offer for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy Models DX33HML and DX44V. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gambler's apparently willfully violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers at its store in Pinconning, Michigan. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264948A1.pdf
      • Gambler's offer for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy Models DX33HML and DX44V. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gambler's apparently willfully violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers at its store in Pinconning, Michigan. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265629A1.pdf
      • non-certified CB transceivers and non-certified external RF power amplifiers. Based on the evidence before us, we find that GI Joe's apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers and linear amplifiers. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265630A1.pdf
      • station's public file did not contain any radio issues/programs lists for the period of January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005. Based on the evidence before us, we find that New Life apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Because station WBRQ's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is warranted.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265669A1.pdf
      • file containing materials listed in that section. On April 6, 2006, the station's public file did not contain any radio issues/programs lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Barreto apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain public file is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265670A1.pdf
      • before us, we find that Hacienda apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because station WRRE's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265671A1.pdf
      • Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Florida Power and Light at the address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5. 47 C.F.R � 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � h jm �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265672A1.pdf
      • by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Lakeland Electric at the address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5. 47 C.F.R � 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ! " # $ � � ! 7 N g  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265692A1.pdf
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Midas Auto Service Experts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission u w | � � ) < U V m n � � � � � � � � < �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265693A1.pdf
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to MCM at 650 Congress Park Dr., Centerville, OH, 45459. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission - . � h h h gd @ B C '' C � ^� � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265778A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The failure to maintain a local main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Amaturo apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the Main Studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265779A1.pdf
      • willful. Macerich's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Macerich apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WCQI991, on 461.0125 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265890A1.pdf
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Midwest apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to adhere to the station's authorized power and hours of operation specified on the KWYR(AM) license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265891A1.pdf
      • � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ ! = Q i � � � � � � i h i V h i i �� � ^�� ' E E -�@ E � V
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266077A1.pdf
      • aired during children's programming in 2003 was available for inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mediacom apparently willfully violated Section 76.1700 of the Rules by failing to make material required to be in the public file (commercial records for children's programming) available for public inspection. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. However, because Mediacom's public file was partially complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266078A1.pdf
      • Corporation, apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules, by failing to comply with painting and lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1015656, and for failing to ensure that the structure was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266228A1.pdf
      • and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by failing to limit signal leakage from its cable television system to the specified amount. We also find that Cox willfully violated Section 76.611(a) of the Rules by exceeding the allowed cumulative signal leakage performance criteria on its cable television system. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266229A1.pdf
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to All American Plazas, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David Dombrowski Acting District Director, Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � ` � � � a c � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266328A1.pdf
      • was involved with operating the radio station. Venters admitted to operating the radio station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Venters apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 100.9 MHz in Okeechobee, Florida, on July 12, 2005. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266437A1.pdf
      • when any monitoring point exceeds its specified limits, the licensee must terminate operation within three hours or reduce power. Access.1's claim that it believed the limits were exceeded because of construction in the area does not negate its responsibility to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 73.62. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because WWRL's public file was mostly complete and missing only one item, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266561A1.pdf
      • issues/programs lists. In response to the LOI, Truatt stated that, although the station had a public affairs calendar, he ``forgot'' to place an issues/programs list in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Truatt apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements is $2,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because WTBQ's public file
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266562A1.pdf
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that T-Mobile West Corporation, apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.23 of the Rules, by failing to comply with lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1041076. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266565A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Xtreme Machines at its address of record and to counsel for Xtreme Machines at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel N. Noel District Director, New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ' 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266601A1.txt
      • the pending application for KA262 to correct the name of the licensee from Intelsat LLC to Intelsat North America LLC, to update contact information, and to update the response to question 36. Intelsat North America LLC also re-submits Exhibits F, J and H with the correct applicant's name. Exhibits A, B, C, and G remain unchanged. 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
      • 2003 616 1,001 1,097 1,156 981 773 572 2004 642 1,028 1,045 1,178 1,040 815 579 1980 2.27% 1.97% 1.89% 1.84% 1.82% 1981 2.43 2.04 1.89 1.96 2.09 1982 2.34 2.07 1.87 2.06 2.12 1983 2.32 2.23 1.87 2.07 2.05 1984 2.17 2.02 1.92 1.94 1.93 2.15% 2.39% 1985 2.35 1.92 1.81 1.86 1.91 2.10 2.29 1986 2.42 2.03 1.75 1.80 1.95 2.28 2.59 1987 2.65 2.08 1.86 1.91 2.03 2.12 2.68 1988 2.55 2.07 1.87 2.01 2.11 2.28 2.53 1989 2.39 2.18 1.80 1.99 1.98 2.30 2.26 1990 2.60 2.15 1.92 2.03 2.02 2.28 2.43 1991 2.81 2.15 1.88 2.11 2.01 2.16 2.38 1992 2.72 2.19 1.88 2.01 2.06 2.20 2.37 1993 2.93 2.40 1.96 1.91 2.14 2.19 2.40 1994
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266879A1.pdf
      • operating radio transmission equipment on 87.9 MHz in Bronx, NY on October 6, October 8, and October 27, 2005 without a Commission authorization and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station on October 6 and October 8, 2005. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266880A1.pdf
      • its monitoring sources. Broadcast House's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcast House apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KNDI. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266881A1.pdf
      • prior to the Los Angeles agent's inspection. Therefore, Una Vez's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266882A1.pdf
      • by the WPOH402 license. This violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Nextel apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its SMR station, WPOH402, on 810.2375 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266883A1.pdf
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Vision Communications Co. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission W U V X r � 5W X 0 W �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267053A1.pdf
      • of the Rules. Time Warner failed to timely file its 2004 and 2005 FCC Forms 320. Indeed, we find it particularly egregious that Time Warner did not file its 2004 FCC Form 320 until April 14, 2006. We therefore admonish Time Warner for violating Section 76.1803 of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267054A1.pdf
      • Ex's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Fed Ex apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WQAS435, on 460.250 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267055A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Igor Oberman at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � * ? @ A b r s t  � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267101A1.pdf
      • radio issues/programs lists were maintained after 2004. Therefore, KITZ Radio's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267102A1.pdf
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Sentry Tech Systems at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h� h� 4 gd� K L � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267214A1.pdf
      • radio issues/programs lists were maintained after 2004. Therefore, KITZ Radio's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267215A1.pdf
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Micromagic Co., Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission j h+ & h i k  � � � � h+ h+ 7j k j + ��&�)(c)FO��� �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267302A1.pdf
      • apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. We also find that Long Pond apparently willfully violation Section 73.3527 by failing to maintain for inspection the complete public inspection file Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000, and failure to maintain items in the public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267303A1.pdf
      • Therefore, CC Licenses' violation was willful. The operation occurred for more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CC Licenses apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed STL transmitter on 944.865 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267304A1.pdf
      • Therefore, CC Licenses' violation was willful. The operation occurred for more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CC Licenses apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed STL transmitter on 945.120 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267570A1.pdf
      • the radio station violated Section 301 of the Act. Therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Guzman apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio station without Commission authorization on June 27 and 28, 2006. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267701A1.pdf
      • reduce power or cease operations at local sunset time on numerous occasions during December 2005 and January 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WADV Radio, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating with its authorized daytime power at nighttime. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267702A1.pdf
      • station without a license violates the Rules and the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Colon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on August 28, August 31, September 5, and September 10, 2006. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267703A1.pdf
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28 and 29, 2006, Champion apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by operating its cable system in violation of signal leakage standards. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267704A1.pdf
      • the violation was willful. The failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that HTV, apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267705A1.pdf
      • more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Albino Ortega and Maria Juarez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the KIGO AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267706A1.pdf
      • used by KUPI-AM occurred more than once. For these reasons, Sandhill's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sandhill apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose two of the KUPI-AM antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267710A1.pdf
      • Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Coverage Solutions Corporation at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), 2.925(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 2.925(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � � � � � � 7 8 �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268220A1.pdf
      • no evidence that the station maintained a public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Smallwood apparently willfully violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file requirements is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of EAS equipment requirements is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268221A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Techno Radio Communications, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission # * l m o v � � � � � n o �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268222A1.pdf
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to DL Management, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R � 2.803(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission w x ' `` � � / 0 1 2 B l { � � � � � � � � � � � � 2 B
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268223A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to All Electronics Corporation at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. �� 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a). 47 U.S.C. �� 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h $ D F q s t � � ^� �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268237A1.pdf
      • public file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully violated Sections 73.1350(b)(2), and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a control system that provides personnel the capability to continuously control the transmitter and failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268343A1.pdf
      • a license was willful. Because the unlicensed operation continued for more than one day, the violation was repeated. Accordingly, we find that Rankine apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 90.1 MHz at five locations in or near Newark, NJ. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268344A1.pdf
      • and that its operation was causing harmful interference. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Carnival apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on May 8, June 18, June 22, and September 14, and 17, 2006. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268345A1.pdf
      • operation was causing harmful interference. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Royal Caribbean apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on May 8 and 9, June 18 and 25 and September 13 and 17, 2006. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268346A1.pdf
      • file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Flagship apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to update the Commission's antenna registration records and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g. failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268420A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Simpson willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 102.3 MHz in Brooklyn, New York, on January 12, 2006, May 6, 2006, July 15, 2006, and July 20, 2006, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268421A1.pdf
      • 11, 2006, the station's General Manager admitted that Unique operated the station after its license expired until September 26, 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Unique apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operations after its license expired. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268422A1.pdf
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kaltenbach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified VHF and UHF transceivers. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268423A1.pdf
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Eagle West apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install and make operational EAS equipment in its cable system serving Mesa, Arizona. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268424A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Edna Greene at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission \ T U | } � � � � � � � \ $ N e ~  � � � �   
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268622A1.pdf
      • tests. There were also no log entries describing when the EAS equipment first became defective. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ABG apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at station WRCG. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268870A1.pdf
      • we find that Patrick apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a), 17.50, and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure, and failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure located in Bastrop, Louisiana. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268871A1.pdf
      • station's chief operator subsequently confirmed the agents' findings in a written statement. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mega willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels, in direct contravention of its station authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268872A1.pdf
      • lists after September 2005. There was no evidence that lists after September 2005 were ever maintained in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that A Radio apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WEGA's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268874A1.pdf
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to John M. Friese at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � ) * \ ] | }  � � � ... � � � � � � (R) � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268875A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Jalin Chi at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h - E F G H j k l m ~ ` � � � � � � 0 � � � � � � � � � ^� �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268876A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Guang Yu at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h ; < = > ` a b c t � � � � � � � � 0 � � � � � � � ^� � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268877A1.pdf
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Dat Phan Truong at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h 9 ; � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � ^� � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268885A1.pdf
      • during nighttime operation, which resulted in operation at approximately 219% of authorized nighttime power. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Anastos willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels as required by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268886A1.pdf
      • undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MBR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files at the main studio location for stations KIQQ(AM) and KIQQ-FM. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269018A1.pdf
      • action voided his authority to operate his CB Station. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 18 and September 28, 2006, Mr. Duckworth willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269019A1.pdf
      • New Orleans Office monitored station WQST-AM's radio broadcasts. On September 22, 2006, an agent also inspected the station's operational studio. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ace apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operations after its license expired. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269020A1.pdf
      • CB frequencies. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Metzger apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale and selling non-certified CB transceivers at the 1 Stop CB Shop, his store in Titusville, Florida. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269021A1.pdf
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to John Elway Pontiac, Buick, GMC, West, at their address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission " ) / 0 ? B � � " � � � � � � � � � � � � + , . / 1 2
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269022A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Caught On Tape at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h� h� $ ' gd� � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269169A1.pdf
      • day, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Family apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 30.94 MHz and 30.98 MHz on December 29, 2005 and January 5 and 10, 2006 without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269170A1.pdf
      • did only after being advised of the violation by a Commission agent. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pinnacle willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure number 1017802. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269171A1.pdf
      • date. There were also no log entries describing when the EAS equipment first became defective. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Russell apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at station KWRD. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269172A1.pdf
      • perimeter property fence was not protective. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to maintain effective locked fences around the bases of its antenna structures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for not having EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269173A1.pdf
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gold Coast apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(b) of the Rules by operating the KMLA transmitter at a power level exceeding 105% of power level authorized by the KMLA license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269174A1.pdf
      • #1013937 occurred on more than one day, therefore, its violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Multicultural apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.51 of the Rules, by failing to exhibit the structure's red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269175A1.pdf
      • has filed for and received an STA for KNCR. We note that the Commission has stated in the past that a licensee is expected to correct errors when they are brought to the licensee's attention and that such correction is not grounds for a downward adjustment in the forfeiture. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the operation at unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269176A1.pdf
      • in the restricted frequency bands. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission � � � � � V V �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269177A1.pdf
      • or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Laser Radio Communications at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission # : : ; \ \ : ; � (c) � � ); $ (R) : ; #yJ � � ^� � #yJ , e
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
      • 4 5 7 9 Nebraska 205,560 NA 0.64 30 41 54 68 Nevada 149,735 NA 0.47 22 30 39 50 New Hampshire 170,433 NA 0.53 25 34 45 57 New Jersey 1,319,513 NA 4.12 193 265 346 438 New Mexico * 45,707 0.16 7 10 13 17 New York 3,684,036 NA 11.50 540 739 967 1,223 North Carolina 576,538 NA 1.80 84 116 151 191 North Dakota * 50,668 0.18 8 11 15 19 N. Mariana Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 979,885 NA 3.06 144 196 257 325 Oklahoma 242,737 NA 0.76 36 49 64 81 Oregon 267,121 NA 0.83 39 54 70 89 Pennsylvania 1,706,036 NA 5.33 250 342 448 566 Puerto Rico * 42,299 0.15
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
      • 4 5 7 9 Nebraska 205,560 NA 0.64 30 41 54 68 Nevada 149,735 NA 0.47 22 30 39 50 New Hampshire 170,433 NA 0.53 25 34 45 57 New Jersey 1,319,513 NA 4.12 193 265 346 438 New Mexico * 45,707 0.16 7 10 13 17 New York 3,684,036 NA 11.50 540 739 967 1,223 North Carolina 576,538 NA 1.80 84 116 151 191 North Dakota * 50,668 0.18 8 11 15 19 N. Mariana Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 979,885 NA 3.06 144 196 257 325 Oklahoma 242,737 NA 0.76 36 49 64 81 Oregon 267,121 NA 0.83 39 54 70 89 Pennsylvania 1,706,036 NA 5.33 250 342 448 566 Puerto Rico * 42,299 0.15
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
      • York 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.29 North Carolina 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.54 0.09 1.18 North Dakota 3.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 0.12 2.30 8.95 N. Mariana Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.83 1.73 Ohio 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.05 0.47 Oklahoma 2.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.22 0.70 5.23 Oregon 0.89 0.01 0.00 0.00 (0.02) 0.71 0.80 0.32 2.71 Pennsylvania 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.23 0.06 0.71 Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.34 0.00 0.00 4.34 Rhode Island 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 South Carolina 0.96 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.49 0.18 2.82 South Dakota 4.41 0.08
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269283A1.pdf
      • station was unauthorized, his violation is willful. Payne's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Payne apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 96.9 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269284A1.pdf
      • never put in place or compiled since October 2005, the violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269285A1.pdf
      • and, consequently, numerous RMTs and RWTs were not received or transmitted. Therefore, One Mart's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that One Mart apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KEVT. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269359A1.pdf
      • advised of the Commission's authority to inspect the station and was again requested to allow the inspection, but he refused. Based on the evidence before us, we find Britcher apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his radio station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. The base amount for failure to permit inspection of a radio station is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269360A1.pdf
      • any authority granted by the Commission to operate this station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Duncan apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 103.3 MHz in Bettendorf, Iowa, on April 18 and 19, 2006. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269361A1.pdf
      • his authority to operate his CB station pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 8, 2006, Mr. Roberts willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269362A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we also find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(b)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain an EAS capable of transmitting EAS tests and failing to maintain a control system that provides personnel the capability to continuously control the transmitter. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of EAS equipment not being installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for violations of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269484A1.pdf
      • an EAS test after that date. There were also no EAS logs and no Cable EAS Handbook available. Based on the evidence before us, we find that COMSOUTH apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an EAS capable of transmitting EAS tests. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269485A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Yogesh Dave at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission \ 5 6 ] ^ c n `` - � � " � � � � � � � � *� � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269802A1.pdf
      • in the restricted frequency bands. 47 C.F.R. � 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission \ � � \ h� gd� gd� h� $  � � � �  � � � � #yJ � � ^� � #yJ �U ,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269871A1.pdf
      • request for special temporary authority to operate station WEHH and WELM at variance with their licenses. We find that Pembrook apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate stations WEHH and WELM in accordance with the modes and power authorized in its licenses. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Because Pembrook submitted evidence that it had purchased new beacon lights and was attempting to locate an individual to install the new lights, we reduce the proposed forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269872A1.pdf
      • failed to take action to repair the lights, we find that the violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore the violation was repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Roy apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,17
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269873A1.pdf
      • air before sunrise. There are no Commission records that authorize TPN to provide presunrise or post sunset service. Based on the information before us, we find that TPN willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times inconsistent with the terms of its station authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000 and for operating at times or with modes or powers other than those specified and made part of the license is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269874A1.pdf
      • shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The term ``willful'' as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. The term ``repeated'' means the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. Section 15.1(b) of the Rules states that an intentional radiator that is not in accordance with the requirements of Part 15 must be licensed, pursuant to Section 301 of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269875A1.pdf
      • was no evidence that the station had ever installed an EAS decoder at the station, and the station's license was granted May 2, 2005. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hispanic apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install an EAS decoder. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of EAS equipment not being installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269876A1.pdf
      • on frequency 145.020 MHz without an Amateur license that day and for approximately the past three years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Parker apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitting equipment on 145.020 MHz without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed radio operation is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269877A1.pdf
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Self Defense Supply at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h ' G I @ � � � � � � � � � � � � � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269878A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to PepBoys Auto at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h M N O P r s t u � tm � � � � � �f� & - � � � � P �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269879A1.pdf
      • sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Spittys Wholesale Specialty Products at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h y z " � � 0 1 2 3 U V W X i | � � � � � � � � � � ...� � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269880A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to ORVAC Electronics at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h 9 Y [ ' ( C D [ \ w x ' `` � � � � �s� D \ � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269881A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to DuVac Electronics at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h . 0 0 1 L M g h � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269882A1.pdf
      • U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ditec Digital Systems at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 15.205. 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission > H J K e i n } � � �� P{� �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269883A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Iglesia de Dios Ebenezer at their record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director, San Diego Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.219(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.219(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Y \ i k l � k l � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270266A1.pdf
      • one day; therefore, we conclude that Mobile's apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mobile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a base station on 35.18 MHz and mobile units on 34.94 MHz, without the required license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270267A1.pdf
      • day; therefore, we conclude that New Relampago's apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that New Relampago apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a base station and mobile units on the frequency 35.08 MHz, without the required license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270268A1.pdf
      • lists were ever maintained in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.3526 by failing to operate consistent with the terms of its station authorization and failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because station KZEY's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270269A1.pdf
      • functionality of the K43FO EAS equipment. 3ABN's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 3ABN repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at K43FO. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270270A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Johanna Sacco at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission \ ? @ g h m t u z � � � � � � � � � � � \ $ q � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270271A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Precision Laser & Instrument at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h� h� c d � � � � � � � � � � #yJ #yJ �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270272A1.pdf
      • 6, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h� h� #yJ #yJ � � T
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270273A1.pdf
      • America at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached ``Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.'' 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission - > � � # � � �>� � >
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270446A1.pdf
      • Lists dated after March 26, 2004. There was no evidence that any lists after that date were maintained in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we find Fannin apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WPPL's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270447A1.pdf
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Big Lots, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � � ��� � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270621A1.pdf
      • after March 2003. The station owner admitted that he failed to maintain any Issues/Programs lists after March 2003. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wilson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WAGF (AM)'s public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270622A1.pdf
      • after March 2003. The station owner admitted that he failed to maintain any Issues/Programs lists after March 2003. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wilson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WAGF-FM's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270623A1.pdf
      • after March 2003. The station owner admitted that he failed to maintain any Issues/Programs lists after March 2003. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wilson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WJJN-FM's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270624A1.pdf
      • Charles' apartment in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Charles admitted to operating the radio station from his apartment since the end of April. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Charles apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270625A1.pdf
      • Pierre-Francois admitted to operating the radio station for a few hours 5-6 days a week since the end of April 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Pierre-Francois apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270626A1.pdf
      • willful. The failure to maintain a local main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hispanic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio for KBBV-CA. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270629A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Monoprice, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 8 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 9 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 10 See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h + K M ; < S T o p � � (R) � � � � � � � � ̇ p
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270630A1.pdf
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to CensusPC at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 8 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 9 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 10 See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h ! A C - . I J d e � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270800A1.pdf
      • its antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Forever apparently willfully violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1027115. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the prescribed lighting and/or marking for antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270801A1.pdf
      • for more than one day, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mexicana apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a base station at an unauthorized location and by operating mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 157.905 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operating from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270802A1.pdf
      • for failure to file the appropriate fee. Larson-Wynn failed to re-submit the correct fee payment and continued operating the station from an unauthorized location from September 22, 2004 to October 27, 2006. The violation, therefore, was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the operation at unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270803A1.pdf
      • 17.48 of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1005634; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1005634. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270804A1.pdf
      • service''). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission htmi htmi � " 1 9 f o r � � (c) � " gd� h� gd� � � ! " � � ! " � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270805A1.pdf
      • service''). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ( ) > ? T U l m � � tm � � � � � � � � � � ( ( ) 0 6 >
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270806A1.pdf
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service''). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270807A1.pdf
      • � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b), 2.815(c). Section 95.655(a) of the rules states: ``[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated.'' See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission - . . / 6 9 : A D kd~ D E L Q R Y e e f m y z � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271061A1.pdf
      • monitored Discovery's transmissions on the frequency 463.350 on February 24, 25, and 27, 2006, and did not hear Discovery transmit its call sign identification during any of the transmissions on those days. We therefore admonish Discovery for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271062A1.pdf
      • MRA's over-power operation continued for more than one day, therefore, MRA's violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MRA apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating the station with an ERP above the limit stated on the WPPF233 license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271063A1.pdf
      • apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules, by failing to comply with painting and lighting requirements specified for antenna structure # 1013252, and for failing to ensure that the structure was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271064A1.pdf
      • prior to the San Francisco agent's inspection. For these reasons, Perreira's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Perreira apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose both of the KIGS antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271065A1.pdf
      • the violation was willful. The failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that PSETV, apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271066A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Aspeedynet at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director, Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b), 15.204(a), 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.204(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission / 0 K N N P Q � � � � � P Q � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271598A1.pdf
      • time of inspections on May 16 and 17, 2006, the agent observed that there was no Antenna Structure Registration number at the base of the tower. We admonish NBTY for failing to post the Antenna Structure Registration Number at the base of its tower in violation of Section 17.4(g). Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271599A1.pdf
      • station was operating with more than 28 watts nighttime power at least between January 1, 2007 and February 15, 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 127, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating station KLFJ overpower during nighttime hours. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271610A1.pdf
      • kept at HRN's home office in Lincolnton, North Carolina, 73 miles from the community of license. Based on the information before us, we find that HRN willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file at the main studio location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at times or modes or powers other than those specified and made part of the license is $4,000 and for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272108A1.pdf
      • sunrise and by operating station KTMR at times not authorized by the terms of the station authorization. Additionally, Siga Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower with radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting or marking is $10,000, and violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. Although Section 1.80 does not specify a base forfeiture amount for operation at unauthorized times, this violation is comparable to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272109A1.pdf
      • for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hoak Media apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1034539 in Grand Junction, Colorado. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272110A1.pdf
      • granted to CVC. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find CVC apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install and make operational EAS equipment in its cable system serving Chula Vista, California. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272111A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Phoenix 6, apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272112A1.pdf
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � �2.803(a)(1) 47 C.F.R. � 95.603(c) See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c); 47 C.F.R. 2.803 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h�3 h�3 he he � $ $ #yJ � � #yJ �3 , e
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272113A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Global Crossing at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ~ � � � � � (c) � " � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272125A1.pdf
      • that Emile willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 96.7 MHz on April 1, 2006, and May 6, 2006, and by operating radio transmission equipment on 104.7 MHz on December 2, 2006, in East Orange, New Jersey, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272194A1.pdf
      • transmitter had been programmed incorrectly and was operating with daytime power at night. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pittman apparently repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and exceeding authorized nighttime power. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the prescribed lighting for antenna structures is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272195A1.pdf
      • licensee's rule violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hoak Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the KGJT-LP EAS equipment and by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file violations is $10,000 and for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272196A1.pdf
      • Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). Section 95.655(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a), states: ``[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated.'' See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � h� h�V � � � � � � � tm (R) �V �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272495A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to William Cooley at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ( ) 3 C G
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272859A1.pdf
      • BY U.S. COA AND APPLICATION REMANDED TO COMMISSION 12/20/96 APPLICATION ACCEPTED FOR FILING 2/27/97 SUPPLEMENT FILED 7/19/2001. Petition for Reconsideration filed 4/26/2007 by ("State of Oregon") 950713MB 77085 ST OF OR ACTING B/T OR ST BRD OF H ED FOR SO. OR UNIV CA REDDING , CA BPED-19950713MB 91.1 MHZ P CP FOR NEW ED STATION ON FREQ: 91.1MHZ ERP: 1.80KW (H&V), HAAT: 482.8 METERS (H&V), 40 39 14 122 31 12 SUPPLEMENT FILED 7/19/2001. Petition for Reconsideration filed 4/26/07 by (State of Oregon) Page 13 of 19 Broadcast Applications 5/7/2007 PUBLIC NOTICEFederal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Recorded listing of releases and texts202 / 418-2222 202 / 418-0500 News media information REPORT NO.26480 CALL LETTERSAPPLICANT AND
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273505A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 Z [ # $ & ? L Y Z -Z [ � � [ h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273506A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � tm a b d } � � - � tm � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273507A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). SAMPLE TEMPLATE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 f g / 0 2 K X e f g ' `` h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273508A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ... � N O Q j w � ... � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273509A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 � � ~  � � � � � � � !� � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273510A1.pdf
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 � i j l ... ' � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273511A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ^ _ ' ( * C P ] ^ _ � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273512A1.pdf
      • and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273513A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire; Keller and Heckman, LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' 4 5 � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273514A1.pdf
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Fry's Electronics 600 East Brokaw San Jose, CA 95112 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 j k 3 4 6 O \ i j k k - - h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273515A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G Miller District Director, Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h/ h/ w x z `` � (R) (R) � (R) � � � h� h/ h/ -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273516A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 ; 8 : ; < d e -; < h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273517A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273518A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D.Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 ^ [ ] ^ _ � � ^ _ h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273519A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 i j l ... ' � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273520A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 � � O P R k x ... � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273521A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � x y { '' � (R) � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273522A1.pdf
      • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 % " $ % & N O % & � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273523A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � (c) � � � � � � -� � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273524A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 June, 2007 h l m hT h h hT hT 5 6 8 Q ^ k l m � h hT � tm h hT $m h� hT hT h hT hT -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273525A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273526A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � � +� � h� h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273527A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273528A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273529A1.pdf
      • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Nebraska Furniture Mart 700 South 72nd Street Omaha, Nebraska 68114 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 30, 2007 D E ) 6 C D E p -p q h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273530A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Field Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273531A1.pdf
      • and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gerardo Daubar Resident Agent Miami, FL Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273532A1.pdf
      • and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gerardo Daubar Resident Agent Miami, FL Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # $ � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273533A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273534A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � h� H -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273535A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273536A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William Berry Resident Agent, San Juan, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D. Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 8 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273537A1.pdf
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Best Buy, Inc. 7601 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 h � � h L M O h u � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273538A1.pdf
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Sears Holding Corporation 3333 Beverly Road Hoffman Estates, IL 60179 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 { | $ D E G ` m z { | � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273539A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Direct Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 JUNE 1, 2007 tm � � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273540A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 JUNE 1, 2007 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273541A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273542A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554  � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273543A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273544A1.pdf
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273545A1.pdf
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 $ % # $ )$ % M N % h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273546A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273547A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 i j h i j j h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273548A1.pdf
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director San Francisco District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 0 - / 0 1 *0 1 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273549A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273550A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273555A1.pdf
      • maintained prior to the Los Angeles agent's inspection. Therefore, Lazer's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273556A1.pdf
      • COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 95.603(c). See 47 C.F.R. �� 95.603(c), 2.803. 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. � 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. h� ? C D H P Y Z [ ^ a b c e l q z { � � � { � � " � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273557A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Renee Smith at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 2 3 x y - � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273558A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Tyco Electronics M/A COM Inc., West, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � 4 5 S Z � � � � � � %� � � � T
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273559A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Jon Marcinko at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director, Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ � � x y - � � � � D D D E - @ A B E B E B E B E - @
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273578A1.pdf
      • CT. During an inspection on April 19, 2007, Ramos admitted to operating radio transmitting equipment on 296.550 MHz from his residence. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ramos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273647A1.txt
      • SES-00934 Report No. RE: ACTIONS TAKEN SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INFORMATION The Commission, by its International Bureau, took the following actions pursuant to delegated authority. The effective dates of the actions are the dates specified. KA262 SES-AMD-20060721-01229E Date Effective: 06/04/2007 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Withdrawn Amendment Intelsat North America LLC Nature of Service:Fixed Satellite Service 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273679A1.pdf
      • placed an order for an EAS decoder after receiving an inspection scheduling telephone call but prior to the actual inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that L4 Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install an operational EAS decoder. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273680A1.pdf
      • several requests by agent to inspect his station, Mr. Winton refused to make his CB station available for inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Winton apparently willfully violated Sections 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to make his CB radio station available for inspection. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273681A1.pdf
      • Almeida's residence in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. de Almeida is not eligible for a license to operate on these frequencies. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. de Almeida apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273682A1.pdf
      • or protective property fence for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Konarz apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower with radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273683A1.pdf
      • enclosed within an effective locked fence or protective property fence. Based on the evidence before us, we find that M.R.S. apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower, with radio frequency potential at the base, within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273684A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Uriel Berchin at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 4(i), 4(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � \ & - 6 ; < [ ] � � � � � � \ $ � #yJ �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273802A1.pdf
      • its discontinuance of service for over a nine-month period. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Talknsports apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1740(a)(4) of the Rules by discontinuing service for over nine months without notifying the Commission or submitting an informal written request for additional time. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized discontinuance of service is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273803A1.pdf
      • 73.1125(a), 73.1350(b)(2) and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain full-time managerial and staff personnel at the main studio during normal business hours, failing to maintain the continuous ability to turn its transmitter off, and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at its main studio. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000, the base forfeiture amount for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273804A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis Loria District Director, Boston Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � yt� gd� gd� yt� gd� yt� h� h� yt� h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273805A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h~ h~ h� � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273806A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director, Boston District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � &� � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273807A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston Office Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 3 4 � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273808A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office North East Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � W p } � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273809A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office North East Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hK � � gdK hK � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273810A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273811A1.pdf
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' ( � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273813A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h h h h h 3 4 � � h� h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273814A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 $ " # � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273815A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director, Columbia District Office, NE Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 B C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273816A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273817A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 $ % � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273818A1.pdf
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � \ \ \ \ h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273819A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273820A1.pdf
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) * � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273821A1.pdf
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' ( � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273822A1.pdf
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 D C C D E m n -D E h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273823A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 ! ! " J K -! " h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273824A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273825A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273826A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273918A1.pdf
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273919A1.pdf
      • any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) * h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273920A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & ' ( S T ' ( h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273923A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) * � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273924A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! " � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273925A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273926A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273927A1.pdf
      • of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Corporate Counsel, if any See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273929A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! - ! " &! " h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273930A1.pdf
      • any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: via email Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ) * h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273931A1.pdf
      • � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Field Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc 702 SW Eighth Street Bentonville, AR 72716 Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 30, 2007 L M 1 > K L M x y h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273932A1.pdf
      • Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! I J - ! h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273933A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - . � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273934A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 = > h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273935A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � " � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273936A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gerardo Daubar Resident Agent- Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273937A1.pdf
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent - Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 / 0 � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273938A1.pdf
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent - Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273939A1.pdf
      • � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Joseph P. Husnay Resident Agent Norfolk District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC RadioShack Corporation Riverfront Campus World Headquarters 300 RadioShack Circle Fort Worth, Texas 76102-1964 Joe D. Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 � (c) q r t )t � � � � (c) � � (c) h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273940A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273942A1.pdf
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent/ San Juan Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D.Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 X Y U W X Y � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273943A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William Berry Resident Agent, San Juan Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274066A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent San Juan Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - ! " J K ! " h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274067A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � &� � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274068A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274069A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 JUNE 4, 2007 � � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274070A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene Windel Resident Agent Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274071A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274072A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � " � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274073A1.pdf
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Big Lots, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton, District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission c d e � � � � � � � � � c d e � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274074A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 % & " $ % & h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274075A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ali Alumari at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen, Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ht t 2 @ g k r s � � ht ht /t u t t
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274076A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274077A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 + , � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274080A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � + � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274081A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 < = > = > h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274082A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274083A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 @ A ? @ @ A A h� h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274084A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 . / h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274085A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - 9 F T U � � T U h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274086A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274087A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274088A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274089A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274112A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ! h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274113A1.pdf
      • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274114A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274115A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274116A1.pdf
      • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # $ � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274117A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h h h gd h ' h ' ( h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274118A1.pdf
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ( ) h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274119A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274133A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274134A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 : ; h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274135A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274136A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ( ) h h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274137A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director District Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 3 4 � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274138A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � yt gd gd yt gd yt gd yt gd yt h� gd yt gd yt yt -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274139A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274140A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274142A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274143A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 h h 8 h 8 9 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274144A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h h``= 6 7 h``= h``= 3 5 6 7 _ ` h 7 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274146A1.pdf
      • Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � (R) � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274147A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h ( ) ��`��gd h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274148A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David J. Charlton Resident Agent Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274149A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274150A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274151A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274210A1.pdf
      • occurred for more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Metro West apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WQBI492, on frequency 463.2875 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274211A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274212A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ���
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274213A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 4 5 h h h h ��`��gd h h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274214A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee� ���
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274215A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274216A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274217A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274218A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274219A1.pdf
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274220A1.pdf
      • any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274221A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274222A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 ? L M N y z M N h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274223A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Communications Counsel See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274224A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 6 7 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274225A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274226A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274227A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles, District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274228A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles, District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274229A1.pdf
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton. District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 9 : 6 8 9 : h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274230A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 B C h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274250A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis Loria District Director Boston Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 / 0 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274251A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274252A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274253A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274254A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274255A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274256A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274257A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274258A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274259A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 H I E G H I q r I h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274260A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 H I - : G H I t u u h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274261A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 0 1 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274262A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Joseph P. Husnay Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274263A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 D E ) 6 D E p q h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274264A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 H I h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274265A1.pdf
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 T U - 9 F T U � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274266A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274267A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� h� & ' h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274268A1.pdf
      • any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P. 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h " # � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274269A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - - I J h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274270A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 / < J K v w J K h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274271A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 H H I -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274272A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274273A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274289A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Georgia Eagle apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violation Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WCEH's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274290A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Georgia Eagle apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violation Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WRPG's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274291A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Georgia Eagle apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violation Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WQXZ's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274292A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274293A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hJ ��`��gdJ hJ � � hJ � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274294A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 `` '' `` '' h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274295A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274296A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274297A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hp � % & � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274298A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ' ( h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274299A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-4007 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � ! � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274320A1.pdf
      • before us, we find that Omnicom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.47 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to observe the antenna structure lights on a daily basis in a manner that would ensure that all lights are working properly and failing to update tower ownership information. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274321A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274322A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274323A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274324A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 hoM hoM � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274325A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 9 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274326A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274327A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � yt gd gd yt gd yt gd yt gd yt gd yt gd yt gd yt yt h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274328A1.pdf
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz, Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274329A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274330A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274331A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � kd h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274332A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274333A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�m h�m h�m h�m h�m � h�m h�m h�m � � � � h�m h�m h�m h�m h� h�m h�m -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274334A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274335A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274336A1.pdf
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274337A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274338A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274339A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells Dallas District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274340A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent/ City, San Juan Office, RK Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h�v gd�v h�v h�v 1 2 . 0 1 2 Z [ h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274341A1.pdf
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & ' h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274342A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 V X Y Z Y Z h� - -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274343A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274344A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau KAM:mpr See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � - � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274347A1.pdf
      • KCLV(AM) and KCLV-FM for a period of over nine months, therefore, Zia's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Zia apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment for stations KCLV(AM) and KCLV-FM. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274348A1.pdf
      • actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that BEC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained at the main studio location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274349A1.pdf
      • 30, 2006. Therefore, his violation is willful. Simon's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Simon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 95.9 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274350A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Fred Grant at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274351A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 . / h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274352A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Fred Caughell at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.109(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission z { * + - / p r &r y z { � � � � � � U � ( ) H I K L N
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274421A1.pdf
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Plascencia repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structures 1062806, 1062807, and 1062808. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274422A1.pdf
      • point information when it filed its renewal application for WPME695 on April 8, 2003. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NSTN apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to operate from a control point listed in a valid authorization granted by the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274423A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274424A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274425A1.pdf
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - I J - h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274426A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274427A1.pdf
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274428A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274429A1.pdf
      • of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire KAM:tn See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - + 9 9 : 9 : e f h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274614A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - J - J K h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274615A1.pdf
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 q r : ; = V c p q r � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274616A1.pdf
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274617A1.pdf
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h h 7 8 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274618A1.pdf
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: via electronic copy Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274619A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman, LLP 1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! - ! " ! " h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274620A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 8 9 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274621A1.pdf
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274622A1.pdf
      • or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent Miami Office Enforcement Bureau CC: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc 702 SW Eighth Street Bentonville, AR 72716 Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � ` � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274623A1.pdf
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent Miami Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - - G H h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274624A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h j 4 M Z g i j j k j k - - h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274625A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274626A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 . / -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274627A1.pdf
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 B C D A B C D D o p -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274628A1.pdf
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 : ; h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274629A1.pdf
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & ' h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274630A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274631A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274632A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � " � " h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274633A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 3 4 -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274634A1.pdf
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ! � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274730A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274731A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274732A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274733A1.pdf
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274992A1.pdf
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ` a b a b h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274993A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 J K G I J K h� h h -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274994A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 % & " $ % & h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274995A1.pdf
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 . 0 1 2 1 2 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274996A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles, District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274997A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274998A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274999A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275000A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275251A1.pdf
      • continued to operate at the daytime power level on August 29 and 30, 2006. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Capstar willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels as required by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275252A1.pdf
      • a meaningful managerial and staff presence at its local main studio, and by failing to maintain quarterly issues programs lists in its public inspection file. We also find that Radio Woodville apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275253A1.pdf
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � � � � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275705A1.pdf
      • for the second and third quarters of 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Davidson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain in its public inspection file quarterly issues/programs lists concerning the station's most significant treatment of community issues. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the Public Inspection File rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275706A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 # # $ # $ h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275718A1.pdf
      • violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 106.3 MHz in Bronx, NY on March 10, 13 and 14, 2007 without a Commission authorization and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow an inspection of his station on March 10, 2007. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit an inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275719A1.pdf
      • maintained for the station. Based on the information before us, we find that Wise apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275720A1.pdf
      • 34 Elgin 80/81st 35 Indiana 94/95th 36 Raleigh 51st 37 Salem 51/52nd 38 Salem 82nd 39 Utica 52/53rd 40 Utica 54/55th 41 Utica 55/56th 42 Utica 58/59th 43 Utica 63/64th 44 Indiana 73rd 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. � 15.209 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � ... � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275721A1.pdf
      • 34 Elgin 80/81st 35 Indiana 94/95th 36 Raleigh 51st 37 Salem 51/52nd 38 Salem 82nd 39 Utica 52/53rd 40 Utica 54/55th 41 Utica 55/56th 42 Utica 58/59th 43 Utica 63/64th 44 Indiana 73rd 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. � 15.209 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission f g h i v w � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275768A1.pdf
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Radio Plus Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the WFDL AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275769A1.pdf
      • investigate or repair the condition of the fence until the inspection by the Denver agents on March 6, 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Brahmin apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain the KRAE antenna structure within an effective enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275770A1.pdf
      • occurred for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MIP apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1024137 in Grand Junction, Colorado. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275912A1.pdf
      • violation has occurred on more than one day and is, therefore, repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sprint apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.23 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1245660. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275913A1.pdf
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service''). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission htmi gd� h� � gd� � H I H I tmi �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275914A1.pdf
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service''). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission htmi gd� h� gd� P � � � tmi �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275915A1.pdf
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service''). 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission htmi gd� h� gd� � � � � � tmi �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276077A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Christian Family Network apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing to operate a radio station on 1500 KHz in Battle Creek, MI after the expiration of its license for station WOLY on October 1, 2004. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276078A1.pdf
      • we find that the violation was willful. Because the violation continued for more than one day, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mondgock apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an amateur radio station without a valid license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmitting equipment without an instrument of authorization is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276079A1.pdf
      • Action Radio's violation occurred on more than one day; therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Action Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KZZR(AM) and KQHC-FM. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276228A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to the City at their address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attn: Frank Penry Traffic Division Public Works Department 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ ( 3 @ A G H V _ e m s � ... `` '' � � � � � � � � � � ,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276378A1.pdf
      • was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day. Therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CB Shop apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale a non-certified CB transceiver. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276655A1.pdf
      • behalf of a candidate for public office. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Ridge apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a political file in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276656A1.pdf
      • violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Southern apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to obtain Commission approval prior to relocating and operating aural STL station WPXT310. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276991A1.pdf
      • February 6, 2007. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bravo Mic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WMU297 from its licensed location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276992A1.pdf
      • 17.48 of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1015782; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1015782. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276993A1.pdf
      • in which Grinton failed to transmit his assigned call sign (K7VNI). Grinton was previously warned by the Seattle Office that any subsequent violation of the Commission's Rules could result in monetary forfeitures. Consequently, Grinton's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000 and base forfeiture amount for failure to provide station ID is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277145A1.pdf
      • 160398 LA FAVORITA BROADCASTING, INC. CA CHOWCHILLA , CA BNP-20070925AJY 720 KHZ E CP New Station. FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 950713MB 77085 ST OF OR ACTING B/T OR ST BRD OF H ED FOR SO. OR UNIV CA REDDING , CA BPED-19950713MB 91.1 MHZ P CP FOR NEW ED STATION ON FREQ: 91.1MHZ ERP: 1.80KW (H&V), HAAT: 482.8 METERS (H&V), 40 39 14 122 31 12 SUPPLEMENT FILED 7/19/2001. Petition for Reconsideration filed 4/26/07 by (State of Oregon) Reply Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration filed 5/17/2007 (AFA) Petition for Reconsideration dismissed per DA 07-4139. Dismissed 10/03/2007. See FCC 07-40, released 3/27/2007. FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL INFORMAL OBJECTION KJAS 15921 JAMES M. LOUT DBA RAYBURN
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277148A1.pdf
      • 418-0500 News media information REPORT NO.46587 APPLICANT AND LOCATION CALL LETTERS N A T U R E O F A P P L I C A T I O N FILE NUMBER STATE E/P 10/03/2007 Actions of: FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT DISMISSED , REDDING 91.1 MHZ P CA CP FOR NEW ED STATION ON FREQ: 91.1MHZ ERP: 1.80KW (H&V), HAAT: 482.8 METERS (H&V), 40 39 14 122 31 12 SUPPLEMENT FILED 7/19/2001. Petition for Reconsideration filed 4/26/07 by (State of Oregon) Reply Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration filed 5/17/2007 (AFA) Petition for Reconsideration dismissed per DA 07-4139. Dismissed 10/03/2007. See FCC 07-40, released 3/27/2007. ST OF OR ACTING B/T OR ST BRD OF H ED FOR SO. OR
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277174A1.pdf
      • and 8, 2007. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Carlsbad Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WGW926 from its licensed location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277175A1.pdf
      • it, therefore, its violation is willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that JMK apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.44(b) of the Rules by failing to adequately attenuate the spurious emissions on 1810 kHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277176A1.pdf
      • therefore it is repeated.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that Campbell willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 97.7 MHz in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 5, 2006, October 12, 2006 and December 21, 2006, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277177A1.pdf
      • 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b) 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). Section 95.655(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a), states: ``[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated.'' See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h�V " " ; < Q R m n ! " ! " 5 7 g i p ! " < n " �V
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277178A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Gold Motors at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen, Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission D D I " ht D ht D 0" $ % ) H � � � � /I J " I � D t
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277580A1.pdf
      • us, we find that New World apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at its main studio and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available the public inspection file upon request. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277581A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Atlas Fitness Center at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission D � hs � � � � � � � � � D s t
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277582A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William Berry Resident Agent, San Juan, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � (c) � � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277659A1.pdf
      • obtain an EAS decoder for station KMZE until after August 14, 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcasters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed during the times the station was in operation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277675A1.pdf
      • this five-month period. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Omni apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available during the times the station was in operation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277832A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Northland apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1700(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file within their physical system and apparently willfully violated Section 76.1700(b) of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277833A1.pdf
      • frequency 465.150 MHz from a vehicle, driven and solely occupied by him, without an authorization from the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. McCollum apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without authorization from the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authority is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277834A1.pdf
      • outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find that PRTC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.47(a)(1), 17.50, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, failing to repaint the antenna structure, and failing to exhibit any of the required obstruction red lights. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277835A1.pdf
      • 4 and 6, 2007. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WLE938 from its licensed location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277836A1.pdf
      • Pace's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day. Therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pace apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importing or marketing of unauthorized equipment is 7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277837A1.pdf
      • AMERI-KING's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AMERI-KING apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act of the Rules by operating an ELT on 406.025 MHz without the appropriate authorization from the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without a license is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277838A1.pdf
      • operation of ELTs occurred on more than one day, therefore, its violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Compatible apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act of the Rules by testing and operating ELTs without the appropriate authorization from the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without a license is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277839A1.pdf
      • failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bennett Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain an accessible main studio in its community of license. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277840A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Southern California Microwave, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h$ h$ h$ h$ gd� tm u | $ � M
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277841A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Irving Levine at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 4 Q ~  � ` � � � � � - A B [ \ � � (R) � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277876A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The unauthorized operation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Velazquez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating station WPUH745 on the frequency 451.900 MHz at an unauthorized location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277877A1.pdf
      • this five-month period. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Omni apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available during the times the station was in operation. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277878A1.pdf
      • business in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Mr. Bazile admitted to operating the radio station from his business location for two days. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Bazile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277879A1.pdf
      • operated their CB radio station in violation of the Rules, consequently, pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules, the Campos' were not authorized to operate under Section 301 of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that the Campos' willfully violated Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277880A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to The Village Gym at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission D j k hs � � k � � � � � � )� k � � D s t
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277881A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 : : ; : ; h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277882A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� h� h� h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277883A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� h� h� h� h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277884A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� h� h� h� h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277885A1.pdf
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent, San Juan, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau V�a Fax: Mr. Lu�s Jim�nez at 787-776-3044 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 � � � � (� � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277886A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 D E D E kd h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277887A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to MATCO, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h h ; [ ] - - @ - - @ Y Z r s � � � � � � � � ? @ g h
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277888A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 > ? h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277889A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 % & ' R S & ' h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277890A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 : ; h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277891A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 2 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277892A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 2 h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278098A1.pdf
      • to comply with Section 17.57 of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Metro apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a), 17.48(a), and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, notification, and registration requirements for antenna structure # 1018735. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or painting is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278099A1.pdf
      • violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 94.5 MHz in Bronx, NY on March 3, 14, and 31, 2007 without a Commission authorization, and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station on March 14, 2007. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit a station inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278100A1.pdf
      • to maintain a complete public inspection file, and failing to maintain an effective locked enclosure around the energized base of one of the station's towers. We find that Star Power also apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000; violation of the public inspection file rule is $10,000; and failing to maintain an effective tower enclosure at the base of the tower is $7,000. However, because station WIQR's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278101A1.pdf
      • of the Rules by failing to maintain its antenna structure's paint in good condition, and failing to exhibit all of the required obstruction red lights. We also find that Telecom apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number at its antenna structure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278102A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 H I h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278185A1.pdf
      • O F A P P L I C A T I O N STATEFILE NUMBER E/P FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 950713MB 77085 ST OF OR ACTING B/T OR ST BRD OF H ED FOR SO. OR UNIV CA REDDING , CA BPED-19950713MB 91.1 MHZ P CP FOR NEW ED STATION ON FREQ: 91.1MHZ ERP: 1.80KW (H&V), HAAT: 482.8 METERS (H&V), 40 39 14 122 31 12 SUPPLEMENT FILED 7/19/2001. Petition for Reconsideration filed 4/26/07 by (State of Oregon) Reply Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration filed 5/17/2007 (AFA) Petition for Reconsideration dismissed per DA 07-4139. Dismissed 10/03/2007. See FCC 07-40, released 3/27/2007. Petition for Reconsideration filed 11/9/07 by ("State of Oregon") FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278243A1.pdf
      • an ownership report, and the current station authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcasters, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS and failing to maintain or make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to make available a complete public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278244A1.pdf
      • ownership information. Based on the evidence before us, we find that IBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.50 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to maintain the paint of its antenna structure in good condition, and failing to notify the Commission of a change in structure ownership. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278246A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 C D h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278367A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Claro apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating the station at a power level exceeding that specified in its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278368A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278369A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h> h> C D h> h> C D h> D h> h> h> h� h> � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278370A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 f f g f g h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278371A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h> k h> k l k l h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278642A1.pdf
      • that FCC agents determined is emitted by the Yaesu transceiver found in Doe's possession. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Doe willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on public safety frequencies in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, without Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278643A1.pdf
      • business hours. Based on the evidence before us, we find that First Baptist apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to install the required EAS decoding/receiving equipment and failing to maintain a full-time managerial and staff presence at the station's main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for not installing the required EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278644A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ] ^ ] ^ kd h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278796A1.pdf
      • with registration number 1023390; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting; and by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information on antenna structure number 1023390. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of an antenna structure is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278797A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 V W V W h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278798A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 M M N M N h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278799A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 = = > = > h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278800A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 d e d e e kd h� ������������ߺ��'�'�|�m��^OH -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278801A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ( ) ( ) kd h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278802A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David J. Charlton Resident Agent, Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 > ? h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278960A1.pdf
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CC Licenses apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the WSYR antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278961A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Skalecki willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 92.9 MHz in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on March 25, 2006, May 6, 2006, March 1, 2007, March 14, 2007, and May 24, 2007, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278962A1.pdf
      • The station's chief operator admitted that the station has not had EAS equipment since he became the chief operator in January 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that VOX apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278963A1.pdf
      • inspection file any of these agreements. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RCN apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a Political File in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves the Northampton, Pennsylvania area. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278964A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 Z [ Z [ kd h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278965A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � kd h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278966A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 A B A B kd h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278967A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 i j i j kd h� W � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278968A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ramiro Ornelas at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ' 5 6 @ K Q U � � � � � � � � c d
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278969A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278970A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279045A1.pdf
      • Points of Communication: 6 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) KA262 SES-MFS-20071207-01676 E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Modification Intelsat North America LLC Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service Page 3 of 7 Modification filed to add ALSAT as point of communication, and to add a new emission designator. 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279188A1.pdf
      • the station's authorized power. We also find that Viva willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. We further find that Viva willfully and repeatedly violation Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain issues/programs lists for a two-year period. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits and operating at less than 90% of the station's authorized power is $4000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an operational EAS system is $8000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279189A1.pdf
      • designation posted with the station license. During the November 16, 2006 studio inspection, the agent observed that there was no written chief operator designation. During the inspection, WYGG's station manager admitted that there was no designated chief operator. We therefore admonish MBHD for violating Section 73.1870 of the Rules. Forfeiture Amount The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules. The base forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279190A1.pdf
      • observations between April 26, 2007, and April 29, 2007. BCBA was aware of the requirement to operate KGNU(AM) at the power levels authorized on its license, but failed to do so. Therefore, the violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279191A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Susainathan apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a) and 1.947(a) of the Rules by operating fixed base transmitters from locations not authorized by the licenses. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279192A1.pdf
      • Section 73.1250. Tabback was aware of the requirement to operate KAZM(AM) at the power levels, hours of operation, and nighttime directional pattern authorized on its license, but failed to do so. Therefore, the violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279193A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 { | { | h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279194A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 e f e f f h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279195A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 L L M L M h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279196A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 5 5 6 5 6 h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279197A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 h� � � � � h� h� h� h� � h� gd� h� gd� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
      • Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues: 2005 (Dollars in Millions) Revenues Interstate for Total Allocation Revenues Alabama $1,078 1.87% $992 $8 $1,176 $92 Alaska NA NA NA NA NA NA American Samoa NA NA NA NA NA NA Arizona 815 1.42 750 6 889 69 Arkansas 546 0.95 503 4 596 47 California 5,968 10.37 5,491 43 6,507 508 Colorado 1,034 1.80 951 7 1,127 88 Connecticut 768 1.34 707 6 838 65 Delaware 173 0.30 159 1 189 15 District of Columbia 350 0.61 322 3 382 30 Florida 3,857 6.70 3,549 28 4,206 328 Georgia 2,169 3.77 1,995 16 2,365 185 Guam NA NA NA NA NA NA Hawaii 253 0.44 233 2 276 22 Idaho 243 0.42 224 2
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.txt
      • Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues: 2005 (Dollars in Millions) Revenues Interstate for Total Allocation Revenues Alabama $1,078 1.87% $992 $8 $1,176 $92 Alaska NA NA NA NA NA NA American Samoa NA NA NA NA NA NA Arizona 815 1.42 750 6 889 69 Arkansas 546 0.95 503 4 596 47 California 5,968 10.37 5,491 43 6,507 508 Colorado 1,034 1.80 951 7 1,127 88 Connecticut 768 1.34 707 6 838 65 Delaware 173 0.30 159 1 189 15 District of Columbia 350 0.61 322 3 382 30 Florida 3,857 6.70 3,549 28 4,206 328 Georgia 2,169 3.77 1,995 16 2,365 185 Guam NA NA NA NA NA NA Hawaii 253 0.44 233 2 276 22 Idaho 243 0.42 224 2
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
      • -1.13 14.77 0.00 250314 C PEOPLES TEL. CO. 1.30 -0.98 2.30 -0.81 250315 C PINE BELT TEL. CO. 12.38 -1.61 14.22 23.57 250316 C RAGLAND TEL. CO. 2.59 -10.01 14.00 8.03 250317 C ROANOKE TEL. CO., INC. 12.60 -3.65 16.87 61.31 250318 C FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF THE SOUTH, LLC -9.77 -2.50 -7.46 -60.92 250322 A UNION SPRINGS TEL. CO. 2.47 -1.80 4.35 8.55 255181 C SOUTH CENTRAL BELL-AL 1.46 -3.64 5.29 0.00 259788 C CENTURYTEL OF ALABAMA, LLC (SOUTHERN) -4.28 -6.01 1.83 -18.34 259789 C CENTURYTEL OF ALABAMA, LLC (NORTHERN) -3.59 -4.50 0.96 -19.42 TOTAL ALASKA -1.36 -6.16 5.12 -6.43 610989 C ADAK EAGLE ENTERPRISES, LLC DBA ADAK TEL UTIL -98.82 0.00 -98.82 -100.00 613000 C ACS OF ANCHORAGE, INC. 2.85
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279432A1.pdf
      • bill for the tower. Finally, he admitted that he was aware that his operation of an unlicensed radio station was illegal. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Gaye apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279433A1.pdf
      • Lucie, Florida. Mr. Maignan admitted that he purchased and set up the radio station equipment without a license from the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Maignan apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279434A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 t u t u h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279435A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 & ' h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279727A1.pdf
      • lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tuff-Star-Jam apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WWSD (AM)'s public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279728A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � kd h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279729A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � kd h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279730A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to WestCom Wireless, Inc. at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ h� z { * / 1 E x y z { � � #yJ #yJ �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279739A1.pdf
      • issues/programs lists were not maintained in the public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hensley Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain an issues/programs list in the station's public inspection file for any quarter during 2006. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because WWII's public file was mostly complete and missing only one item, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279953A1.pdf
      • unlicensed station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation, because Section 301 of the Act provides that ``no person shall use or operate'' radio transmission equipment. Taken together, we find that Mr. Whitely's actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279954A1.pdf
      • advised WGBB station management of the incorrect ownership information on the ASR. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that WGBB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change of ownership of its antenna structure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. We find that failure to notify the FAA of a tower light outage and failure to immediately notify the Commission of a change in antenna structure ownership constitute failures
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279955A1.pdf
      • Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1207183; by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1207183. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279956A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 t u t u h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279957A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 $ % $ % h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279958A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 n o n o h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279959A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279960A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279961A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 g h g h h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279962A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � h� -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279963A1.pdf
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Napa Auto Parts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen, Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission D c ht ht D - ( * 4 Q b � � � � D ht .c d � c � D t
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279991A1.pdf
      • 100) 29.17% -1.52% However, as shown in the chart below, since the period immediately preceding enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, prices for cable services have risen by 93%.9 9 Report on Cable Industry Prices (FCC 06-179), released December 27, 2006. Cable Rates and the Consumer Price Index Cable 1995 $22.35 Cable 2005 $43.04 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Normalized Pri ce -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cable Price (basic-plus-expanded basic) CPI 25 $0.51 $0.43 $0.33 $0.27 $0.20 $0.14$0.11$0.10 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Price Per Minute for An International Call The average price of wireless telephone calls has fallen since
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280042A1.pdf
      • - ECHOSTAR 7 - (119 W.L.) Atlanta - ECHOSTAR 8 - (110 W.L.) Atlanta - RAINBOW1 - (61.5 W.L.) KA262 SES-MFS-20071207-01676 E Date Effective: 02/04/2008 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 03/31/1999 - 03/31/2009 Modification Intelsat North America LLC Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280116A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to J. Schatz & D. Martinez at their record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � (R) � � � � � � � � � � (R) � � � � � � � �O
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280117A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " / 0 1 \ ] 0 1 h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280118A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 " / 0 0 1 0 1 \ ] h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280119A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 4 4 5 4 5 h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280120A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 d d e d e h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280121A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 P P P Q P Q h� � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280122A1.pdf
      • Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). Sprint-Nextel holds a Specialized Mobile Radio Service License KNNX426 under the name FCI 900, Inc. that authorizes Sprint-Nextel to operate a cellular system in the frequency band 900.00625 MHz through 900.13125 MHz in the Philadelphia Market. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 3 ( / 4 8 @ � � � *3 4 � � (R) � � M � � � � � � 3 � T
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280123A1.pdf
      • U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Exxon Mobil Corporation at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b), 15.204(a), 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.204(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission - O P q � � � � � h^ h^ { } ~ } ~ � ^ �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280418A1.pdf
      • air at 9:00 PM-CST. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Rackley apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to broadcast from its authorized location and operating at a power level in excess of that authorized by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at unauthorized locations is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280419A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280420A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ^ _ ^ _ _ � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280421A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 s t � s t t -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280558A1.pdf
      • to the requirements of the rules and regulations of the Commission. On January 11, 2007, and January 7, 2008, Clemons refused to allow agents to inspect the station. We therefore find that Clemons willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit an inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280559A1.pdf
      • to the agents that he knew he was operating on a frequency that was not authorized for use by amateur licensees. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Barbosa apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280560A1.pdf
      • failed to respond. Therefore, Action's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Action apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act by failing to respond to Commission correspondence. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280561A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 X Y X X Y � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280562A1.pdf
      • sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Fry's Electronics, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280563A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280564A1.pdf
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280705A1.pdf
      • before us, we find that Mr. Glass apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and Section 301 of the Act by failing to have an operational EAS, failing to operate within authorized power limitations, and failing to have a license for the station's STL. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to operate within authorized power limitations is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280706A1.pdf
      • Return Receipt Requested to King Taco Restaurants, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b), 15.205(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.205(a). 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 C.F.R. � 15.201(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission m n � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280707A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 K L K L � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280823A1.pdf
      • information, however, until May 23, 2007, more than one year later. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Holmes willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure number # 1017802. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280824A1.pdf
      • location caused interference to a co-channel licensee. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Traffic Controll apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules by operating station WPNP358 for several months, on frequency 467.8375 MHz, outside of the 32 km radius specified within its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280825A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280826A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephanie Dabkowski Resident Agent, Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 N O u v w � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281010A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephanie Dabkowski Resident Agent, Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 4 5 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281011A1.pdf
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 0 1 0 1 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281213A1.pdf
      • second request, the Portland Agent read and explained Section 95.426(a) of the Rules (CB Rule 26) to Barber. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jeremy William Barber apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to permit inspection. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281214A1.pdf
      • his violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day; therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kersnowski apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281215A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 T U T U � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281216A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 w x w x � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281217A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281218A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281219A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � (c) � (c) � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281220A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281221A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � " � " � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281222A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281346A1.pdf
      • to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4, August 16, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281347A1.pdf
      • its violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Colomex apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating station WQBI487 on frequencies other than those authorized by its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281348A1.pdf
      • had been operating from this location for over eight years; therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Radio One apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station KSZ63 from its licensed location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281349A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � kd � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281350A1.pdf
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to High Mark Communications, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Z [ \ ]
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281507A1.pdf
      • was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clouden apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license on 101.3 MHz in Boston, MA. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281508A1.pdf
      • services and facilities incidental to the transmission of communications by radio. We find that Mr. Rodriguez is responsible for the unlicensed station operation on 90.5 MHz at 276 Ellison Street, Paterson, NJ 07501 and that his actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281509A1.pdf
      • we find that Owner apparently willfully violated Section 17.47(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR numbers at the bases of his antenna structures and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint his antenna structures to maintain their visibility. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post an ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281510A1.pdf
      • stated it was still unable to take its station off the air at sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ASA apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to go off the air post sunset as specified in the station authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281511A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Halifax apparently willfully violated Section 73.845 of the Rules by operating its station inconsistent with the terms of its station authorization (overpower and with an unauthorized antenna) and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed station. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base amount for operating an unlicensed station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281512A1.pdf
      • we find that Phillips apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available complete inspection files for Stations WOAC and WFOY and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for Stations WOAC and WFOY. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because the public inspection files for stations WAOC and WFOY contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 for each station is
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281513A1.pdf
      • leakage, therefore, its violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KLIP apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by operating a cable system in violation of signal leakage standards. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281514A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 R S R S � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281515A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 T U T U � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281516A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 P Q P Q � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281517A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 N O N O � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281518A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281656A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 t u t u u � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281657A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 B C B C C � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281658A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 * + * + + � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281659A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 w x w x x � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281660A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ] ^ ] ^ ^ � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281661A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Peter J. Esposito, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 0 7 y z { | | |
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281662A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Macy's at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission A B B � � � � � � B � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281663A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281664A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282140A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Magothy Communication Associates at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � " � � L M #yJ #yJ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282164A1.pdf
      • the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jean Idalbert apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 90.9 MHz in Brooklyn, NY on August, 26 and December 15, 2007, and February 23, 2008, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282165A1.pdf
      • lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find that D-Mitch apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. and failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the Public File is $10,000. Because station WBSC's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282166A1.pdf
      • Doe's bedroom, that was later determined capable of operating on channel 16, and an antenna just outside of his bedroom. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Doe apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 325 of the Act by making false distress calls to the USCG. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture for violation of false distress communications is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282167A1.pdf
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282177A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Perihelion apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49, 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to enclose the antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure, failing to maintain a main studio, and failing to transmitting the station identification. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintaining a main studio is $7000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to transmitting
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282178A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � - � - � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282179A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282180A1.pdf
      • � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b), 2.815(c). Section 95.655(a) of the rules states: ``[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated.'' 47 C.F.R. � 95.655(a). See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � - , < [ j } ~ � - , < [ j } ~ � tm � � � � � � � � 
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282181A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 - . � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282249A1.pdf
      • that it had not painted or installed red lights on the structure since it acquired the structure on September 11, 1996. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Union Pacific apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules by failing to paint and light antenna structure #1065191. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282250A1.pdf
      • First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Greg's Pro Audio, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission D F G � � � F G � � � G � � � � � � � � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282251A1.pdf
      • Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to 4 KAMM International, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission - 3 4 K L g h  � � � � � � � 4 L h � � � � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282252A1.pdf
      • by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to EJ Enterprises, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � # $ ? @ Z [ ~  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282253A1.pdf
      • First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Max Sales Group, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Y [ \ [ \ \ � � � � � � � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282593A1.pdf
      • maintained. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Friendship apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because the public inspection file for station KWOF-FM contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282594A1.pdf
      • system until March 1, 2008, therefore we find these violations were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Princess K Fishing Corporation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 80.89(a) of the Rules by engaging in superfluous radio communications resulting in the transmission of false distress communications. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for transmitting false distress communications is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282595A1.pdf
      • undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MBR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files at the main studio location for stations KIQQ(AM) and KIQQ-FM. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282596A1.pdf
      • than one day. Therefore, the violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Orvac apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing uncertified intentional radiators, specifically, wireless video cameras and transmitters operating on 2.4 GHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282597A1.pdf
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to New Tung Kee at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.209(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.19(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.209(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 308(b), 403. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282770A1.pdf
      • of the Rules by operating station WIFI with excessive power, by failing to maintain fully operational EAS equipment for station WIFI, by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around a WIFI antenna tower, and by failing to maintain the radio issues/programs lists in the WIFI public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating with excessive power is $4,000, failing to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000, and failing to maintain an effective tower enclosure at the base of the tower is $7,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282771A1.pdf
      • unlicensed operation had been occurring since 2001. We therefore find that the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bear Creek apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 462.500 MHz without a license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmitting equipment without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282773A1.pdf
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 3 4 _ ` 3 4 4 � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282956A1.pdf
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. � 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David J. Charlton Resident Agent Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 W X W X � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283149A1.pdf
      • 301 of the Act. The violation was repeated because it occurred on more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Louis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by providing services and facilities incidental to the transmission of communications by radio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283150A1.pdf
      • one day; therefore the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kissi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 96.5 MHz in Bronx, NY on February 28 and March 1, 2008, without a Commission authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283151A1.pdf
      • violation was willful. The violation continued for more than one day; therefore, the violation was repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Chladek apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain radio issues/programs lists in the public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because Chladek's public file was mostly complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283152A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Aulabaugh apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the Public File is $10,000. Because the public inspection files for stations KSEY and KSEY-FM contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283153A1.pdf
      • workers who were not fully aware of the potential for exposure, and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent access to an area that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. We note that if Visionary had been operating at its full authorized power, the RFR levels would be significantly higher. 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the RFR rules. In assessing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283480A1.pdf
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � ... � � ... � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283481A1.pdf
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Shelton's Auto Lube and Auto Wash at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � � � � � (R) � � � � � � � � � (R) � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283650A1.pdf
      • inspection file any of these agreements. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Adams apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a Political File in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves the Carbondale, Pennsylvania area. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283651A1.pdf
      • than one day and therefore was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Atlantic Broadband apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a Political File in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves Clearfield, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283652A1.pdf
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas Miller District Director, Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. � 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283836A1.pdf
      • by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Wolfcom Enterprises, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � ) * E F ` a � ... � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284298A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Telava apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and failing to notify immediately the Commission of a change of ownership of the Tower with ASR number 1050197. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000, and failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284299A1.pdf
      • its violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Greeley Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain the KGRE antenna structure within an effective enclosure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284300A1.pdf
      • it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Starfish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating an earth station in the fixed satellite service without the benefit of a license granted by the Commision. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284301A1.pdf
      • actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. ( Based on the evidence before us, we find that Creative apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files at the main studio location for station KTOX(AM). Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284302A1.pdf
      • 2008, was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Albino Ortega and Maria Juarez apparently willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence surrounding KIGO's antenna tower. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked fence is seven thousand dollars is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284303A1.pdf
      • willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Playa apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 74.1236(c) of the Rules by failing to adequately attenuate by at least 60 db the spurious emissions from its translator station, K238AK, on 109.5 MHz, 122.2 MHz, and 136.1 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284304A1.pdf
      • E, Technical Regulations in the Personal RadioService Rules, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. � 2.815(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � ` � ' $ " � " � " � #yJ � � #yJ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284454A1.pdf
      • 1.903(a), and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') by failing to operate its broadcast station in a manner which complies with the terms of the station authorization, operating a Studio Transmitter Link on an unauthorized frequency, and failing to maintain radio issue/programs lists in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain directional antenna pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284455A1.pdf
      • issues. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the public inspection file is $10,000. Because station WLAA's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
      • 2005 744 1,099 1,208 1,229 1,077 845 619 2006 722 1,129 1,271 1,269 1,115 889 645 1980 2.27% 1.97% 1.89% 1.84% 1.82% 1981 2.43 2.04 1.89 1.96 2.09 1982 2.34 2.07 1.87 2.06 2.12 1983 2.32 2.23 1.87 2.07 2.05 1984 2.17 2.02 1.92 1.94 1.93 2.15% 2.39% 1985 2.35 1.92 1.81 1.86 1.91 2.10 2.29 1986 2.42 2.03 1.75 1.80 1.95 2.28 2.59 1987 2.65 2.08 1.86 1.91 2.03 2.12 2.68 1988 2.55 2.07 1.87 2.01 2.11 2.28 2.53 1989 2.39 2.18 1.80 1.99 1.98 2.30 2.26 1990 2.60 2.15 1.92 2.03 2.02 2.28 2.43 1991 2.81 2.15 1.88 2.11 2.01 2.16 2.38 1992 2.72 2.19 1.88 2.01 2.06 2.20 2.37 1993 2.93 2.40 1.96 1.91 2.14 2.19 2.40 1994
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285380A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Cho at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director, Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission I K q r � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285863A1.pdf
      • 10, 2008 by its employees. Based on the evidence before us, we find that BK apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours, at a minimum, between August 1 and September 9, 2008. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285864A1.pdf
      • therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sims apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a) and 1.903(b) of the Rules by operating mobile units on the unauthorized frequency of 469.4 MHz. and a mobile relay station on the unauthorized frequency of 464.4 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286287A1.pdf
      • Thus, at a minimum, violations occurred between June 22, 2007 and February 26, 2008. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jacksonville apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower's lights or light indicator at least once every 24 hours. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286431A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules on May 9, 2008 by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286481A1.pdf
      • repeatedly violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to display the ASR number at the base of antenna structure number 1012977 and apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.48(a) of the Rules by not reporting immediately a malfunctioning light, which could not be corrected within 30 minutes, to the FAA. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required information is $3,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286526A1.pdf
      • we find that OMI apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours, at a minimum, between May 1 and October 9, 2008 at a time that would insure the proper operation of the antenna structure lighting. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286788A1.pdf
      • operational EAS equipment, transmitting unauthorized emissions, failing to enclose their antenna tower bases within effective fences, and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. We also find that Black Crow apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, unauthorized emissions is $4,000, AM tower fencing is $7,000 and violation of public file rules is $10,000. Because the WNDB public inspection file was partially complete, we conclude that a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286789A1.pdf
      • in 2001. Based on the evidence before us, we find that PBS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise, and failing to notify the Commission immediately of a change in structure ownership. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286904A1.pdf
      • 5, 2008. However, as of November 6, 2008, the Tower was still not registered in the ASR database. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Millworks apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its Tower located in Greenwell Springs, Louisiana. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286906A1.pdf
      • and 73.3526 of the Rules by not reporting immediately a malfunctioning light, which could not be corrected within 30 minutes, to the FAA and failing to maintain a public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required information is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violating public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287217A1.txt
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 � � w -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287327A1.pdf
      • and 11, 2008. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mt. Rushmore apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WHB734 from its licensed location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment installed but not operational is $8,000, public file violations is $10,000 and for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
      • Idaho 476,630 0.26 0.46 0.31 34 43 Illinois 4,327,301 2.36 3.60 2.67 295 373 Indiana 3,062,228 1.67 1.96 1.74 192 243 Iowa 1,607,857 0.88 1.58 1.05 116 147 Kansas 1,197,027 0.65 0.38 0.58 64 82 Kentucky 2,091,714 1.14 1.41 1.21 133 169 Louisiana 3,514,197 1.92 0.96 1.68 185 234 Maine 1,661,202 0.91 0.15 0.72 79 100 Maryland 3,699,991 2.02 1.15 1.80 199 251 Massachusetts 8,424,374 4.60 0.41 3.55 392 495 Michigan 4,440,168 2.42 4.41 2.92 322 407 Minnesota 2,105,442 1.15 1.33 1.19 132 167 Mississippi 2,495,975 1.36 0.43 1.13 124 157 Missouri 3,439,451 1.88 3.88 2.38 262 332 Montana 486,840 0.27 0.53 0.33 37 46 Nebraska 793,900 0.43 0.95 0.56 62 78 Nevada 473,407 0.26 0.37 0.29 32 40 New Hampshire
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
      • Idaho 476,630 0.26 0.46 0.31 34 43 Illinois 4,327,301 2.36 3.60 2.67 295 373 Indiana 3,062,228 1.67 1.96 1.74 192 243 Iowa 1,607,857 0.88 1.58 1.05 116 147 Kansas 1,197,027 0.65 0.38 0.58 64 82 Kentucky 2,091,714 1.14 1.41 1.21 133 169 Louisiana 3,514,197 1.92 0.96 1.68 185 234 Maine 1,661,202 0.91 0.15 0.72 79 100 Maryland 3,699,991 2.02 1.15 1.80 199 251 Massachusetts 8,424,374 4.60 0.41 3.55 392 495 Michigan 4,440,168 2.42 4.41 2.92 322 407 Minnesota 2,105,442 1.15 1.33 1.19 132 167 Mississippi 2,495,975 1.36 0.43 1.13 124 157 Missouri 3,439,451 1.88 3.88 2.38 262 332 Montana 486,840 0.27 0.53 0.33 37 46 Nebraska 793,900 0.43 0.95 0.56 62 78 Nevada 473,407 0.26 0.37 0.29 32 40 New Hampshire
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
      • CO LTD. - ID -3.35 0.44 -3.77 0.00 472222 C FREMONT TELCOM CO. -9.57 -4.12 -5.68 -16.41 472223 C CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM STATE, INC.-ID -4.15 -2.67 -1.52 -7.05 472225 C CENTURYTEL OF IDAHO, INC. -5.93 -4.34 -1.66 -10.85 472226 C MIDVALE TEL. EXCH. INC. 0.50 -1.43 1.96 -0.08 472227 A MUD LAKE TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE ASSN. INC. -1.89 -6.90 5.38 1.80 472230 C POTLATCH TELEPHONE COMPANY INC. -10.07 -4.21 -6.12 -36.72 472231 C PROJECT MUTUAL TEL. COOP. ASSN. 1.81 -3.99 6.03 13.13 472232 C DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS ROCKLAND, INC. -1.42 -2.17 0.76 -2.71 472233 C RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - ID 13.02 8.69 3.99 13.39 472295 C SILVER STAR TEL. CO. INC.-ID -1.04 3.03 -3.96 -4.26 472416 C VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.-ID -0.46 -1.93
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288139A1.pdf
      • license was granted February 12, 2008. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bethune-Cookman apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by operating a radio transmitter without a license and by failing to install the required EAS decoder. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for not installing the required EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288271A1.txt
      • INTELSAT AOR - (342.0 E.L.) 1 - New Skies 806 - (319.5 E.L.) 1 - NSS-5 - (183 E.L.) KA262 SES-RWL-20090129-00091 E Date Effective: 02/02/2009 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 03/31/2009 - 03/31/2024 Renewal Intelsat North America LLC Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service 39 � 13 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 22021 COMSAT DRIVE, MONTGOMERY, CLARKSBURG, MD 77 � 16 ' 11.40 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX CSM LMA-2 15.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 15.2 KPC 82.00 dBW TTC&M 6172.0000 - 6178.0000 MHz 800KFXD 86.00 dBW TTC&M 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 60M0G1D 58.20 dBW ANALOG AND DIGITAL DATA, VOICE, AND VIDEO 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 100KG7W-
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289662A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find that ERF Wireless apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit continuously the medium intensity lighting on its antenna structure and failing to notify immediately the Commission of the ownership change for this structure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290027A1.pdf
      • Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1023097; by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1023097. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290028A1.pdf
      • 95.655(a); see also Amendment of Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal RadioService Rules, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � $ � #yJ � � #yJ � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290762A1.pdf
      • and 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization by operating with an antenna model and orientation not authorized by its station license, operating at an unauthorized location, and failing to install required Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS equipment is $8,000. In
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290763A1.pdf
      • Section 73.1620 of the Rules. Consequently, Hodson's operation of KHOD(FM) to this date has been unauthorized. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hodson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1620 of the Rules by operating KHOD(FM) at variance from the terms of the KHOD(FM) construction permit. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290798A1.pdf
      • violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MRBI apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1014422 in Pomona, California. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290811A1.pdf
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Eight Friends apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a base station on the frequencies 461.400 MHz and 469.450 MHz and mobile units on the frequencies 466.400 MHz and 469.450 MHz, without the required license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290812A1.pdf
      • than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lazer Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure numbers 1013829 and 1013830 in Santa Barbara, California. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file forms or required information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290813A1.pdf
      • agreed to the inspection but then refused. Bondy was aware of the requirement to make his radio equipment available to the agent, as the agent explained the requirement to Bondy. Consequently, we find that Bondy apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000; the base forfeiture for interference is $7,000; and the base forfeiture for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290814A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Timothy J. Teligades at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission . 5 w x � y y z y
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291111A1.pdf
      • the facilities used in the operation of the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Severino apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 101.5 MHz on October 15, 2008 and April 15, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291275A1.pdf
      • than one day, we conclude that the violation was repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that WKLJ apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a main studio for WFBZ in compliance with the Commission's Rules. FORFEITURE AMOUNT Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291276A1.pdf
      • was willful. Because the violation occurred on more than one day, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that R-S Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain radio issues/programs lists in the station's public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291277A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Telos Online at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291391A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291391A2.txt
      • 1 2 3 4 Other Aruba 58 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 $0 $190,864 0.0 0.00.0100.0 0.0 $0 Bahamas, The 1,06865.8 6.9 0.021.3 5.9 $0 $1,074,691 6.5 8.90.071.9 12.7 $0 Barbados 275 0.089.5 0.010.5 0.0 $0 $204,085 0.074.70.025.3 0.0 $0 Bermuda 2,679 0.0 2.7 0.068.0 29.3 $0 $1,960,906 0.010.40.079.1 10.5 $0 Cayman Islands 8,958 0.0 7.0 0.061.3 31.7 $0 $3,048,977 0.0 1.80.026.5 71.8 $0 Cuba 565 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 99.6 $0 $5,908,296 0.0 0.00.079.4 20.6 $0 Dominica 32100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $14,300100.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 $0 Dominican Republic 4,313 6.672.6 0.0 4.1 16.7 $0 $3,418,69918.661.70.011.2 8.4 $0 French Overseas Departments 32 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 $0 $40,944 0.0 0.00.0100.0 0.0 $0 Grenada 199.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $0 $15,000100.0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291855A1.txt
      • I.D. No. 56483 erratum Released: July 1, 2009 By the Acting Chief, Media Bureau: On June 29, 2009, the Media Bureau released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NALF), DA 09-1482, in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum amends the NALF as indicated below: 1. Paragraph 8 is corrected to read as follows: The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules do not establish base forfeiture amounts for specific EEO rule violations, such as a failure to recruit widely for vacancies or to self-assess EEO performance. However, they do establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the Commission�s public file rules and of $3,000 for failure to file required information. In determining the appropriate forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291888A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Jackson willfully violated Section 11.35 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System (EAS) and failing to have an effective locked fence or other enclosures around the antenna structure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for EAS equipment not installed or operational and AM tower fencing are $8,000 and $7,000, respectively. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291889A1.pdf
      • Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Larry Kaufman at his record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director, San Diego Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b) and 15.29(a). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. �15.29(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $ � � � � � � ``��1�&j[``� � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291890A1.pdf
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to USA1 Communications Corp., Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 5 < ~  � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291964A1.pdf
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Albert Lucero at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � / 0 1 2 A d u � � � � � � / 0 1 2 A d u � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291966A1.pdf
      • of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to BQE Auto Body Shop at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission , - � � � � K L M o p q r � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292254A1.pdf
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Grand N Realty LLC at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission C D � , O h � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � , O h �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292255A1.pdf
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ricardo Moore at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � 6 tm ) * , - / 0 2 3 5 6 X Y Z c d e p q r ''
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292572A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Data Flow Systems, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven DeSena Resident Agent Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 8 � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292670A1.pdf
      • his residence and that he knew he was not supposed to be operating the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 87.9 MHz from his residence. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292671A1.pdf
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Marcos A. Santos at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � > � 1 2 4 5 7 8 : ; = > ` a b k l m x y z � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292790A1.pdf
      • February 22, 2007 for operating an unlicensed radio station from his residence. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Frank apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on July 22, 2009 and August 3, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292884A1.pdf
      • an otherwise unblemished Case3:06-cv-02699-EDL Document80 Filed08/19/09 Page31 of 32 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32 record. See In re Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement & Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17102 (1997) ("We agree that warnings can be an effective compliance tool in some cases involving minor or first time violations."). As the government notes, the second announcement by WESM-FM identifying Arista Records is more in the nature of an identification than overt marketing. Diercks Affidavit, Ex. E.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292932A1.pdf
      • irrelevant as to whether his violation was willful, as he intentionally operated the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Grover apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 87.9 MHz from the Lakeside Inn. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292933A1.pdf
      • of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Irma Frausto at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director, Los Angeles Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � $ � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293167A1.pdf
      • studio, station personnel were unable to make available Issues/Programs lists for the years 2007, 2008, and the first quarter of 2009. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WSKQ apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because only a portion of the WSKQ-FM public inspection file was not available at the time of inspection, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $4,000 is warranted.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293168A1.pdf
      • studio, station personnel were unable to make available Issues/Programs lists for the years 2007, 2008, and the first quarter of 2009. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WPAT apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because only a portion of the WPAT-FM public inspection file was not available at the time of inspection, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $4,000 is warranted.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293305A1.pdf
      • and that they had not notified the FAA regarding the outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Foundation, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all medium intensity obstruction lighting as specified, between May 10 and 18, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293306A1.pdf
      • occurred for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Burken apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1219542 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293307A1.pdf
      • was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Roberts apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 87.9 MHz in San Francisco, California. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a radio transmitter without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293418A1.pdf
      • 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was operational when the station was in operation between May 15, 2007 and February 13, 2009 and failing to maintain a full-time managerial and staff presence at the station's main studio on July 7 and August 3, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for not having operational EAS equipment installed and not maintaining a meaningful management and staff presence are $8,000 and $7,000, respectively. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293419A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Patton Radio Service at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission b c � � � � $ � � #yJ #yJ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293420A1.pdf
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Hinkletown at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission ` a a a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293619A1.pdf
      • construction in 2004. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules by failing to paint or light its antenna structure in Hartwell, GA from the date the structure was constructed in March 2004 until August 18, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed painting and/or marking is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293822A1.pdf
      • to monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; by failing to maintain the structure painting and lighting in accordance with the ASR specifications, and by failing to report the extinguishment of the top flashing red beacon on antenna structure #1002607. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293823A1.pdf
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Having held an authorization before, Tropicana was aware such operations required a license. Therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tropicana apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293824A1.pdf
      • repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Shimmick-Obayashi apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to operate in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in the Commission's Rules and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for use of an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293882A1.txt
      • AUDIO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W 76.00 dBW ANALOG VIDEO WITH ASSOCIATED AUDIO SUBCARRIERS 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0F8W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E990301 SES-RWL-20090910-01140 E Date Effective: 09/30/2009 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 10/15/2009 - 10/15/2024 Renewal Old Dominion University Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service 36 � 53 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 4300 HAMPTON BLVD., CITY OF NORFOLK, NORFOLK, VA 76 � 18 ' 15.10 " W LONG. LOCATION: VERTEX 1 4.8 meters ANTENNA ID: 4.8 KPK 75.00 dBW ANALOG, VIDEO/AUDIO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0F8W Page 5 of 13 ANALOG, VIDEO/AUDIO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0F8W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E890955
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294206A1.pdf
      • a note in the public file indicating that the political files could be found in binders on top of the cabinet. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Univision apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because the public inspection file for station WQBU-FM contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294207A1.pdf
      • The violation continued for more than one day; therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Paisa apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its base station and mobile radios on a frequency not authorized on the WQEQ855 license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294208A1.pdf
      • the structure's ownership information. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ECPI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all medium intensity obstruction lighting as specified and failing to immediately notify the Commission upon change in ownership information. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294712A1.pdf
      • operating a radio station solely within the borders of Texas. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jerry and Deborah Stevens apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on September 21, 2009 and October 16, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294713A1.pdf
      • via written NOUO prior to the inspection conducted on August 22, 2009. Based on the evidence and technical information before us, we find that Ayustar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitters without a license on March 11 and August 22, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294714A1.pdf
      • Holiday Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached ``Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.'' 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294715A1.pdf
      • Requested to Clarion Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached ``Excerpts from 47 U.S.C. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.'' 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission H
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295044A1.pdf
      • the obstruction lighting for several months. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Marconi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe the obstruction lighting at least once each 24 hours to insure the proper operation of the antenna structure lighting. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295045A1.pdf
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Pinecomputer at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nadar Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. � 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission - 4 5 P Q h i � ... � � � � � 4 5 P Q h � � 3 6 6 6 + 0
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295187A1.pdf
      • Requested to Duke Energy at their address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Joseph P. Husnay Resident Agent Norfolk District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b) 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � $ #yJ % " #yJ % " #yJ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295384A1.pdf
      • on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. As the holder of multiple FCC licenses, Wal-Mart was aware such operations required a license. Therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wal-Mart apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295385A1.pdf
      • on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. As the holder of multiple FCC licenses, Costco was aware such operations required a license. Therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Costco apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295386A1.pdf
      • licensee with multiple broadcast holdings, HTM is aware of the requirement to maintain a public inspection file. Therefore, its violation was willful. Because no public inspection file was ever maintained since the beginning of KUKY's operations, the violation has occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
      • 24.87 462203 C THE RYE TELEPHONE CO. INC. -0.08 0.25 -0.33 -2.19 462204 C COLUMBINE ACQ CORP DBA COLUMBINE TELECOM CO -6.36 -0.89 -5.52 -15.99 462206 A STONEHAM COOPERATIVE TEL. CO. -21.52 -1.30 -20.48 -49.99 462207 C STRASBURG TEL. CO. 0.70 -2.07 2.83 -6.77 462208 C CENTURYTEL OF COLORADO, INC. -0.56 -2.74 2.24 -6.00 462209 C WIGGINS TEL. ASSOC. 4.37 -1.80 6.28 8.06 462210 A WILLARD TEL. CO. -24.40 -4.69 -20.68 -51.59 465102 C QWEST CORPORATION - CO 3.44 -7.58 11.93 0.00 CONNECTICUT TOTAL 3.46 -7.81 12.22 0.00 132454 A THE WOODBURY TEL CO MERGED INTO 135200 SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TEL 135200 C SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TEL. (+ 132454 WOODBURY) 3.46 -7.81 12.22 0.00 DELAWARE TOTAL 6.73 -9.55 18.01 0.00 565010
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
      • 24.87 462203 C THE RYE TELEPHONE CO. INC. -0.08 0.25 -0.33 -2.19 462204 C COLUMBINE ACQ CORP DBA COLUMBINE TELECOM CO -6.36 -0.89 -5.52 -15.99 462206 A STONEHAM COOPERATIVE TEL. CO. -21.52 -1.30 -20.48 -49.99 462207 C STRASBURG TEL. CO. 0.70 -2.07 2.83 -6.77 462208 C CENTURYTEL OF COLORADO, INC. -0.56 -2.74 2.24 -6.00 462209 C WIGGINS TEL. ASSOC. 4.37 -1.80 6.28 8.06 462210 A WILLARD TEL. CO. -24.40 -4.69 -20.68 -51.59 465102 C QWEST CORPORATION - CO 3.44 -7.58 11.93 0.00 CONNECTICUT TOTAL 3.46 -7.81 12.22 0.00 132454 A THE WOODBURY TEL CO MERGED INTO 135200 SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TEL 135200 C SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TEL. (+ 132454 WOODBURY) 3.46 -7.81 12.22 0.00 DELAWARE TOTAL 6.73 -9.55 18.01 0.00 565010
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A9.txt
      • 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.82 5.00 485 Pacific Telecom Inc. 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.14 1.40 51 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.18 1.95 33,755 Verizon 0.02 0.00 0.52 0.23 1.57 100,522 Windstream 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.25 1.66 6,101 Price Caps 0.01 0.00 0.56 0.23 1.64 322,923 NECA 0.00 0.00 2.06 0.39 5.04 15,125 All Price Caps and NECA 0.01 0.00 0.63 0.24 1.80 338,049 4 Data reflect only those company study areas subject to price-cap regulation. Source: Access tariff filings. per Switched Switched Traffic Sensitive 1 This table shows average rates (weighted by minutes of use) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs subject to price-cap regulation and all LECs in the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) pool. Rates are
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295453A1.pdf
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Waldec willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to conform the lighting on antenna structure number 1253674 with the FAA recommendations for the antenna structure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting specifications is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295588A1.pdf
      • station on frequency 107.3 MHz from his first floor apartment at 4643 Bronx Boulevard. We find that Mr. Reid is responsible for the unlicensed station operation on 107.3 MHz at 4643 Bronx Boulevard and that his actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295589A1.pdf
      • unlicensed station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation, because Section 301 of the Act provides that ``no person shall use or operate'' radio transmission equipment. Taken together, we find that Luna Park's actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295590A1.pdf
      • to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mark Nierman and Kakadu apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on the frequency 99.9 MHz in Brooklyn, New York. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295591A1.pdf
      • Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached ``Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.'' 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � 9 � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295592A1.pdf
      • Inn, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission F � � � � � O S O S #yJ #yJ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295818A1.pdf
      • on November 8, 2006, January 27, 2007, and on March 2, 2007, in Paterson, NJ, without a Commission authorization and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station on November 8, 2006, January 27, 2007, and March 2, 2007. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295820A1.pdf
      • failing to maintain an effective locked fence or other enclosure at the base of the station's antenna tower and failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Stone/Collins apparently willfully violated Section 73.3536 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked tower fence or enclosure is $7,000; and failing to maintain a public file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295821A1.pdf
      • failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of its antenna tower, and failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Rodgson apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file during normal business hours. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000; failure to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000; and failure to maintain an effective locked fence or enclosure at the base of the antenna structure is $7,000. In
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295903A1.pdf
      • Florida. Mr. Magloire admitted to operating the radio station for approximately 2-3 months from First Residence and his current residence. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Magloire apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295904A1.pdf
      • We find that Marixsa Rolon is responsible for the unlicensed station operations on 90.1 MHz and 96.7 MHz at 217 East 7th Avenue, Plainfield, New Jersey and that her actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act on August 2, 3 and 4, 2009. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296089A1.pdf
      • to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4, August 16, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296090A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Big Fish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure numbers 1044859 and 1066000 and failing to notify the FAA immediately of prolonged obstruction light outages. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296091A1.pdf
      • the license held by Cerritos Ford was WQKA311 which authorized five different frequencies in the Industrial Radio Service. Based on the evidence before us, we find Cerritos Ford apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 467.675 MHz, a frequency not authorized in its license. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296092A1.pdf
      • structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator and/or automatic alarm system designed to register or detect any lighting failure; by failing to maintain the structure lighting in accordance with the ASR specifications, and by failing to report the extinguishment of the top flashing red beacon on antenna structure #1012525. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296093A1.pdf
      • evidence before us, we find that Gila apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to operate in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in the Commission's Rules and with the terms of its authorization granted by the Commission. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296094A1.pdf
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Kevin Whitfield at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission - . � � � Z � . M N P Q S T V W Y Z | } ~ � � � '' � -
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296217A1.pdf
      • equipment was installed and operational, failing to display the ASR number in a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure, failing to notify the FAA of a light outage, and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have operational EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296218A1.pdf
      • us, we find that KFW apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed and operational, failing to report an outage to the FAA, and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have operational EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296219A1.pdf
      • Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 76.610; see attached ``Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors.'' 47 C.F.R. � 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � 1 � � � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296220A1.pdf
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S.Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Sonic Drive-In Restaurant at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director, Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission y z | 4 K b { � � � 4 b 3 6 J M a u w | � � � � � 4 �&
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296239A1.txt
      • of Residential Fixed High-Speed Connections to Tract Households as of December 31, 2008 Sources: FCC Form 477, Part VI; Geolytics 2009 Block-Level Estimates; and Census 2000. Note: Ratios over 2 were set to 2. See Technical Notes at the end of the report. 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.400.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 >=2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perc ent age of T rac ts Number of Tracts 66,287 Median 0.55 Ratio of Residential Fixed High-Speed Connections to Tract Households U.S. Federal Communications Commission High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2008 26 19 Table 12 Distribution of Census Tracts by Ratio of Residentia l
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296382A1.pdf
      • or by anyone else. Thus, there was no verification of whether or not the station was operating with authorized power, and no initiation of any corrective action for the overpower condition that had been ongoing for several months. We therefore admonish Caron for violating Section 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because station WKAT's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment of the base
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296383A1.pdf
      • and Information Bureau Warn Against the Manufacture, Importation, Marketing or Operation of Transmitters Designed to Prevent or Otherwise Interfere with Cellular Radio Communications. DA 99-2150, released October 12, 1999; Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States. DA 05-1776, released June 27, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � � ^�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296408A1.pdf
      • on the evidence before us, we find that PRTC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.48 and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to notify the FAA immediately of a lighting outage and failing to exhibit all of the required red obstruction lights on January 12 and 18, 2010. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296578A1.pdf
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Telecom Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission , 3 u v w w x w
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296705A1.pdf
      • find that the violation was willful. Because the violation occurred for more than one day, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Multicultural apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a political file. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public inspection file rule is $10,000 per station. Because the public inspection file for stations WZRC and WKDM was largely complete, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $4,000 per station is warranted.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296706A1.pdf
      • eighteen days in November 2008. According to Clarion, the station's transmitter had not malfunctioned on any of those days. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clarion apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times beyond the station's post sunset authorization. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for unauthorized emissions. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296707A1.pdf
      • Two agents also recognized Mr. Senat's voice as that of DJ ``Done-Done.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Senat apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 91.3 MHz from a residence in Orlando, Florida. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296708A1.pdf
      • address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). Station WQIM291 is authorized a pair of VHF frequencies in the Conventional Industrial/Business Pool. Station WNHS767 is authorized a pair of 800 MHz frequencies in the Conventional Public Safety/Special Emergency 801-821/851-866 Pool. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � (R) � � � $ ! " � � #yJ #yJ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296841A1.pdf
      • on September 1, 2009. We further find that Paul Parara, Richard Parara, and Delroy Johnson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by providing services and facilities incidental to the unlicensed operation on 97.5 MHz in Hyde Park on July 14, 2009 and July 16, 2009 Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296989A1.pdf
      • inspection, Mr. Davis, as the owner of the structure, was required to maintain the painting and lighting requirements assigned to the antenna structure until the structure is dismantled. See 47 U.S.C. � 303(q). On May 4, 2008, the agent notified the FAA of the outage, and the FAA issued a Notice to Airmen (``NOTAM'') at that time. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � $ C D #yJ % " #yJ % " #yJ
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296990A1.pdf
      • by fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Terra at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region FCC Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission $
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296991A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ross Store #372 at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent, Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission � � � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298097A1.pdf
      • fine or imprisonment. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Costco Wholesale Store at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent, Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. � 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. �� 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. � 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Q � � � � Q Q R Q
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300234A1.pdf
      • in the operation of the station. The violation was repeated because it occurred on more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blake apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 101.5 MHz. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300921A1.pdf
      • the evidence before us, we find that Big Fish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure numbers 1044859 and 1066000 and failing to notify the FAA immediately of prolonged obstruction light outages. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301294A1.txt
      • Tracts by Ratio of Residential Fixed Connections to Tract Households as of June 30, 2009 Sources: FCC Form 477, Part VI; Geolytics 2009 Block-Level Estimates; and Census 2000. Note: Ratios over 2 were set to 2. See Technical Notes at the end of the report. 0 0.10 0.200.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.901.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.601.70 1.80 1.90 Max 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Perc ent age of T rac ts Number of Tracts 66,287 Median 0.56 Ratio of Residential Fixed Connections to Tract Households U.S. Federal Communications Commission Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2009 22 18 Table 12 Distribution of Census Tracts by Ratio of Resi dential Fixed Connections
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
      • 0.15 0.07 0.48 0.24 1.71 01/01/02 06/30/02 0.15 0.07 0.47 0.24 1.69 07/01/02 06/30/03 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.22 1.46 07/01/03 06/30/04 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.22 1.44 07/01/04 06/30/05 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 1.53 07/01/05 06/30/06 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.25 1.59 07/01/06 06/30/07 0.01 0.00 0.54 0.25 1.63 07/01/07 06/30/08 0.01 0.00 0.56 0.26 1.71 07/01/08 06/30/09 0.01 0.00 0.63 0.24 1.80 07/01/09 06/30/10 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.26 1.85 Source: Access tariff filings. Rates in Effect From To Sensitive per Switched Interstate Charges for Switched Access Service Carrier Common Line per Originating Traffic Non-Traffic Carrier Common Line per Terminating Sensitive per Switched Access Minute 2 Minute 1 4 Although the charges took effect on 7/1/2000, some companies made adjustments to the tariffs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303359A1.txt
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303405A1.txt
      • 200 kbps in at Least One Direction to Tract Households as of December 31, 2009 Sources: FCC Form 477, Part VI; Geolytics 2010 Block-Level Estimates; and Census 2000. Note: Ratios over 2 were set to 2. See Technical Notes at the end of the report. 0 0.10 0.200.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.901.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.601.70 1.80 1.90 Max 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Perc ent age of T rac ts Number of Tracts 66,287 Median 0.57 Ratio of Residential Fixed Connections to Tract Households U.S. Federal Communications Commission Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2009 53 38 Table 26 Distribution of Census Tracts by Ratio of Residential Fi xed Connections
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
      • 0.54 GEORGIA 0.55 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.31 0.19 2.05 GUAM 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.57 0.00 0.00 9.20 HAWAII 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.97 0.23 0.23 6.59 IDAHO 2.41 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 1.68 0.73 6.49 ILLINOIS 0.26 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.16 0.14 1.00 INDIANA 0.52 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.42 0.19 1.80 IOWA 1.25 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.95 0.57 0.88 4.81 KANSAS 5.91 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.32 0.70 10.45 KENTUCKY 1.22 0.08 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.13 0.68 0.19 3.88 LOUISIANA 2.54 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.38 0.17 4.34 MAINE 0.42 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.60 2.46 MARYLAND 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.11
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
      • 0.54 GEORGIA 0.55 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.31 0.19 2.05 GUAM 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.57 0.00 0.00 9.20 HAWAII 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.97 0.23 0.23 6.59 IDAHO 2.41 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 1.68 0.73 6.49 ILLINOIS 0.26 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.16 0.14 1.00 INDIANA 0.52 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.42 0.19 1.80 IOWA 1.25 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.95 0.57 0.88 4.81 KANSAS 5.91 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.32 0.70 10.45 KENTUCKY 1.22 0.08 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.13 0.68 0.19 3.88 LOUISIANA 2.54 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.38 0.17 4.34 MAINE 0.42 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.60 2.46 MARYLAND 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.11
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.txt
      • 0.15 0.07 0.48 0.24 1.71 01/01/02 06/30/02 0.15 0.07 0.47 0.24 1.69 07/01/02 06/30/03 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.22 1.46 07/01/03 06/30/04 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.22 1.44 07/01/04 06/30/05 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 1.53 07/01/05 06/30/06 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.25 1.59 07/01/06 06/30/07 0.01 0.00 0.54 0.25 1.63 07/01/07 06/30/08 0.01 0.00 0.56 0.26 1.71 07/01/08 06/30/09 0.01 0.00 0.63 0.24 1.80 07/01/09 06/30/10 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.26 1.85 07/01/10 06/30/11 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.27 1.92 Source: Access tariff filings. Rates in Effect From To Sensitive per Switched Interstate Charges for Switched Access Service Carrier Common Line per Originating Traffic Non-Traffic Carrier Common Line per Terminating Sensitive per Switched Access Minute 2 Minute 1 4 Although the charges took effect on 7/1/2000,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304153A1.txt
      • 4.5 meters ANTENNA ID: 4.5M. ANALOG VIDEO WITH ASSOCIATED AUDIO SUBCARRIERS 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0F8W DIGITAL AUDIO AND VIDEO 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E100162 SES-REG-20101216-01604 E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Registration FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY Page 29 of 36 Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 27 � 30 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 222 BOB BULLOCK ROAD, WEBB, LAREDO, TX 99 � 25 ' 57.90 " W LONG. LOCATION: ANDREW CORPORATION C1 4.5 meters ANTENNA ID: 4.5M. ANALOG VIDEO WITH ASSOCIATED AUDIO SUBCARRIERS 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0F8W DIGITAL AUDIO AND VIDEO 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E100163 SES-REG-20101216-01605
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304936A1.txt
      • AUDIO SUBCARRIERS 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0F8W DIGITAL AUDIO AND VIDEO 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E100162 SES-REG-20101216-01604 E Date Effective: 02/23/2011 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 12/16/2010 - 12/16/2025 Registration FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service Page 12 of 30 27 � 30 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 222 BOB BULLOCK ROAD, WEBB, LAREDO, TX 99 � 25 ' 57.90 " W LONG. LOCATION: ANDREW CORPORATION C1 4.5 meters ANTENNA ID: 4.5M. ANALOG VIDEO WITH ASSOCIATED AUDIO SUBCARRIERS 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0F8W DIGITAL AUDIO AND VIDEO 3700.0000 - 4200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E100163 SES-REG-20101216-01605
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305296A1.txt
      • 200 kbps in at Least One Direction to Tract Households as of June 30, 2010 Sources: FCC Form 477, Part VI; Geolytics 2010 Block-Level Estimates; and Census 2000. Note: Ratios over 2 were set to 2. See Technical Notes at the end of the report. 0 0.10 0.200.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.901.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.601.70 1.80 1.90 Max 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Perc ent age of T rac ts Number of Tracts 66,287 Median 0.58 Ratio of Residential Fixed Connections to Tract Households U.S. Federal Communications Commission Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2010 53 38 Table 26 Distribution of Census Tracts by Ratio of Residential Fi xed Connections
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305331A1.txt
      • 2011 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: On March 9, 2011, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 11-41, in the above captioned proceeding. This Erratum amends the NPRM as indicated below: Paragraph 34 of the NPRM is corrected to read as follows: ``34. Miscellaneous. We also take this opportunity to revise the undesignated paragraph in section 1.80(a) to address issues not directly related to implementation of the Truth in Caller ID Act and to redesignate that undesignated text as ``Note to paragraph 1.80(a).'' With respect to the proposed revisions, first, in order to ensure that the language in the rule encompasses the language used in all of the statutory provisions, we propose amending the rule to say
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307406A1.pdf
      • Bur. rel. Sept. 29, 2010). 27 Interview with Tom Rosensteil, by Steven Waldman, FCC, (Jan. 11, 2011). 28 Fines can be increased above the base level for: "(1) Egregious miscon- duct; (2) Ability to pay/relative disincentive; (3) Intentional violation; (4) Substantial harm; (5) Prior violations of any FCC requirement; (6) Substantial economic gain; (7) Repeated or continuous violation." 47 CFR 1.80. See, The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303. 29 Commission Reminds Broadcast Licensees, Cable Operators and Others of Requirements Applicable to Video News Releases and Seeks Com- ment on the Use of Video News Releases
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308992A1.txt
      • - SPACEWAY 3 - (94.95 W.L.) E020071 SES-MFS-20110715-00822 E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Modification SES Americom, Inc. Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Direct to Home Fixed Satellite, Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service "MFS" to add new emission designator and related service, to add frequency and to add points of communication. 38 � 47 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: Bristow 8000 Gainsford Ct, Prince William, Bristow, VA 77 � 34 ' 23.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: Vertex RSI 13 Meter 13 meters ANTENNA ID: KPK Standard Video 10950.0000 - 11200.0000 MHz 36M0F3F Standard Video 11450.0000 - 11700.0000 MHz 36M0F3F Standard Video 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0F3F CW, Tracking Beacon 11198.0000 - 11198.0000 MHz N0N
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310261A1.txt
      • 200 kbps in at Least One Direction to Tract Households as of December 31, 2010 Sources: FCC Form 477, Part VI; Geolytics 2010 Block-Level Estimates; and Census 2000. Note: Ratios over 2 were set to 2. See Technical Notes at the end of the report. 0 0.10 0.200.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.901.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.601.70 1.80 1.90 Max 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Perc ent age of T rac ts Number of Tracts 66,287 Median 0.60 Ratio of Residential Fixed Connections to Tract Households U.S. Federal Communications Commission Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2010 54 38 Table 26 Distribution of Census Tracts by Ratio of Residential Fi xed Connections
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.txt
      • 0.15 0.07 0.48 0.24 1.71 01/01/02 06/30/02 0.15 0.07 0.47 0.24 1.69 07/01/02 06/30/03 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.22 1.46 07/01/03 06/30/04 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.22 1.44 07/01/04 06/30/05 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 1.53 07/01/05 06/30/06 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.25 1.59 07/01/06 06/30/07 0.01 0.00 0.54 0.25 1.63 07/01/07 06/30/08 0.01 0.00 0.56 0.26 1.71 07/01/08 06/30/09 0.01 0.00 0.63 0.24 1.80 07/01/09 06/30/10 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.26 1.85 07/01/10 06/30/11 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.27 1.92 07/01/11 06/30/12 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.28 1.98 Access Minute 2 Minute 1 4 Although the charges took effect on 7/1/2000, some companies made adjustments to the tariffs which did not take effect until 8/11/2000. 1 This table shows average rates (weighted by minutes of use) for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312234A1.pdf
      • T U R E O F A P P L I C A T I O N STATEFILE NUMBER E/P FM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 950713MB 77085 OREGON ST BOARD OF HIGHER ED FOR THE UNIV OF OREGON CA REDDING , CA BPED-19950713MB 91.1 MHZ P CP FOR NEW ED STATION ON FREQ: 91.1MHZ ERP: 1.80KW (H&V), HAAT: 482.8 METERS (H&V), 40 39 14 122 31 12 SUPPLEMENT FILED 7/19/2001. Petition for Reconsideration filed 4/26/07 by (State of Oregon) Reply Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration filed 5/17/2007 (AFA) Petition for Reconsideration dismissed per DA 07-4139. Dismissed 10/03/2007. See FCC 07-40, released 3/27/2007. Petition for Reconsideration filed 11/9/07 by ("State of Oregon") Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-313277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-313277A1.txt
      • Modification SES Americom, Inc. Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Direct to Home Fixed Satellite, Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service This application has been granted in part and dismissed in part per letters to the applicant, DA 12-437 dated March 21, 2012, and DA 12-478 dated March 27, 2012. Page 5 of 20 38 � 47 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: Bristow 8000 Gainsford Ct, Prince William, Bristow, VA 77 � 34 ' 23.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: Vertex RSI 13 Meter 13 meters ANTENNA ID: KPK Standard Video 10950.0000 - 11200.0000 MHz 36M0F3F Standard Video 11450.0000 - 11700.0000 MHz 36M0F3F Standard Video 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0F3F CW, Tracking Beacon 11198.0000 - 11198.0000 MHz N0N
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314802A1.txt
      • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On June 14, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 12-62, in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects a typographical error in paragraph 34 to make it consistent with paragraphs 1, 12, and 32, and read as follows: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,120 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,121 Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. __________________________ 120 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). 121 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Pamela S. Kane Deputy
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-86352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-86352A1.txt
      • 96-445 Mail Return Receipt Requested a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the licensee. 14. The reports are to be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the attention of the Mass Media Bureau's EEO Branch, Enforcement Division. 15. With respect to the forfeiture proceeding, the licensee may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Any comments concerning the ability to pay should include those financial items set forth in the attachment. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary 15495
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-110A1.txt
      • 23, 2000 Released: March 29, 2000 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we dismiss in part and deny in part the March 31, 1999 application for review filed by Mark H. Fulling of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, the former Compliance and Information Bureau found Mr. Fulling liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for operation of an unlicensed FM broadcast station, in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the application in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-194A1.doc
      • fee. The court found the New York law constituted a taking because it caused a permanent, physical occupation of landlords' property without just compensation. TSR Complaint � 32. Metrocall Complaint pp. 13-14. See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 22568, � 31 (rel. Nov. 10, 1998); see also 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503((b); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1208; see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.1202(a) (defining in relevant part a ``presentation'' as ``[a] communication directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding ... .''); 47 C.F.R. � 1.1202(b) (a written ex parte presentation is one that ``is not served on the parties to the proceeding''; an oral ex parte presentation is one that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-196A1.txt
      • we believe a total forfeiture of $40,000 is appropriate and consistent with the Central Illinois and Puget Sound cases. We allocate the forfeitures as follows: $22,000 to Roadrunner, $10,000 to DOE, and $4,000 each to City Courier and Eastside/Westside. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Dynamex Operations East, Inc., City Courier, Inc., and Eastside/Westside, Inc. ARE LIABLE FOR MONETARY FORFEITURES in the amounts of $22,000, $10,000, $4,000, and $4,000, respectively, for their willful and repeated violations of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 310(d), and former Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-219A1.txt
      • the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send eight unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that Tri-Star is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $47,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-230A1.txt
      • those guidelines will not change the definition of indecency or the Commission's enforcement procedures, both of which have been affirmed by the courts. Moreover, as we have previously stated, ``[w]hile we still intend to issue such guidance, we continue to believe that our existing rulemaking orders and case law provide sufficient guidance.'' Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Reconsideration Order), 15 FCC Rcd 303, 306 (1999). Thus, we find no merit to Citicasters' argument that it is unable to substantively respond to the NAL until after issuance of the guidelines and we see no reason to await issuance of the guidelines before imposing the forfeiture order in this case. In
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-239A1.txt
      • mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $2,400,000 forfeiture penalty. Finally, we note that evidence of further violations may lead to institution of a proceeding to revoke BDP's authorization to be a long distance carrier under section 214. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Business Discount Plan, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000) for violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December 1997 to December 1998
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-268A1.txt
      • for assessing an appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations that were subject to a forfeiture from July 23, 1998 forward. Accordingly, ENSERCH's argument that the NAL violated the statute of limitations is rejected. ENSERCH also argues that the forfeiture exceeds the $82,500 maximum forfeiture for any single action or failure to act. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5)(iii). We reject that argument because each station that ENSERCH transferred without Commission approval constitutes a separate violation of the Act and the Commission's rules. See Courtesy Communications, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 4198, 4200 (1999). The $82,500 statutory maximum represents the maximum forfeiture that can be issued ``for any single act or failure to act described in paragraph (1) of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-278A1.txt
      • of Peace for willful and repeated violations of the main studio rule, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1125. 2. After considering all of the facts and circumstances, we believe the licensee made significant good faith efforts to comply with the main studio rules. We conclude that no sanction should be imposed. See generally The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17101, 17116 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules and accompanying note, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4) (downward adjustment for good faith). 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority granted by section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-314A1.txt
      • 1217, 1221-24 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Garden State Broad. Ltd. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386, 393-94 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The figure contained in Section 503(b)(2)(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(c), is $75,000. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-358), the maximum has been adjusted for inflation up to $82,500. See Section 1.80(b)(5)(iii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5)(iii). Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-314 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 00- / V k t � / V k t � � ,� � �0� �� �� � �0� �� �0� �0� �� � � � , 5 { { �� �� ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-31A1.txt
      • facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for rescinding the Amer-I-Net NAL. Further, Amer-I-Net has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $1,360,000 forfeiture penalty for which it is liable. V. ORDERING CLAUSES . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Amer-I-Net Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of one million three hundred sixty thousand dollars ($1,360,000) for violating the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions. Payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-347A1.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ' ' w w w � � � � � w ' ' ' ' � � ' ' ' ' ' _ � � Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: September 14, 2000 Released: September 19, 2000 By Before the Commission: This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties defined in that section to account for inflation since
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-377A1.txt
      • within 30 days of issuance of an NAL, Tri-Star failed to respond to an NAL or pay the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 4. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-378A1.txt
      • evidence, which persuades us not to issue any forfeiture for those alleged violations. Thus, we reduce the proposed $1,000,000 forfeiture penalty to $680,000. We note that evidence of further slamming violations could result in additional enforcement proceedings against Vista. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1100, 64.1150. Payment shall be made
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-390A1.txt
      • not exceed the $110,000 statutory limit for a single violation forfeiture. The nature of calculations is irrelevant to issues of statutory compliance. We continue to believe a $99,000 forfeiture is appropriate for that violation based on all the facts and circumstances at issue. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Intellicall Operator Services IS LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ninety nine thousand dollars ($99,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 254 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 254, and Section 54.706 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-393A1.txt
      • 30 days of issuance of an NAL, Carolina Liquidators failed to respond to the NAL or pay the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Carolina Liquidators, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $230,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 4. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-399A1.txt
      • the issue of whether disparities in performance are due to conduct of the BOC or competitors has been a fact-intensive, highly contested issue. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Pub. L. No. 104-104 � 402(b)(2). . Pursuant to section 1.17 of our rules, carriers are obliged to file accurate information with the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.17. Section 1.80 provides for application of the statutory maximum forfeiture for ``misrepresentation/lack of candor.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). In 1998, for example, interexchange carriers purchased $25.25 billion in interstate access services from incumbent LECs. See FCC, Statistics of Communications Common Carriers 154 (1998/1999 ed.). See 47 U.S.C. � 256. See paragraph 36, supra. See NARUC White Paper in Appendix C. See,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-400A1.txt
      • of Intent to Revoke Interconnection Authority. Before revoking interconnection authority under the provisions of this section, the Commission, or the Common Carrier Bureau under delegated authority, will issue a written Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority, or a Joint Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority pursuant to ��1.80 and 1.89 of this chapter. (c) Delivery. The Notice will be sent via certified mail to the responsible party for the terminal equipment at issue at the address provided to the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments. (d) Reauthorization. A product that has had its approval revoked may not be authorized for connection to the public switched telephone network for a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-410A1.txt
      • had continually refused to agree to any written terms proposed by the station. The Commission tentatively found Cablevision to be in violation of the Act and the Commission's rules on a repeated basis since at least February 16, 1999. In determining the amount of the forfeiture, the Commission was guided by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, which takes into consideration the standards set forth in �503(b)(2) of the Act. Under these standards, $7,500 is the base forfeiture for violations of the cable broadcast signal carriage rules. The Commission applied the forfeiture base on a per system basis. The Commission concluded that 17 cable systems were at issue and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-413A1.txt
      • 28, 2000 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we deny the April 24, 2000, application for review filed by Colorado Small Business Development Association, Inc. (``CSBDA'') and Westall Communications, d/b/a/ M.T.W. (``Westall'') of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, the Enforcement Bureau found CSBDA liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 and Westall liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for unauthorized construction and operation of business radio transmitters in the greater Denver, Colorado area, in willful violation of Section 301 of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-414A1.txt
      • misrepresentation); A T & T Communications, 10 FCC Rcd 1664 (1995) (maximum $1,000,000 forfeiture for continuing violation of Section 201(a)). The amount in this case was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D), including the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations. We find no downward adjustment factors present. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. The total forfeiture is $1,425,000. 69. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That pursuant to 47 U.S.C. �503(b), Liberty Cable Co., Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of one million four hundred and twenty five thousand dollars ($1,425,000) for willful and repeated violations of 47 U.S.C. � 301. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-419A1.txt
      • well as the reasons set forth in the Bureau's February 25, 2000, MO&O. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Buchanan Broadcasting Company, Inc.'s application for review of the MO&O released February 25, 2000, IS DENIED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f) of the Rules, Buchanan Broadcasting Company, Inc., shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, pay the amount of $9,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and the terms of the WJNT station authorization. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-420A1.txt
      • By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part the May 19, 2000 application for review filed by WGUL-FM, Inc., licensee of Station WINV(AM), of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the former Compliance and Information Bureau ("CIB") found WGUL-FM, Inc. liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 for willful and continuous violation of rule sections 11.52(d) (EAS code and attention signal monitoring requirements), 11.61(a) (tests of EAS procedures), and 73.3526(c) (availability of public inspection file for public inspection). For the reasons
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
      • and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2000, MD Docket No. 00-58, FCC 00-240 (rel. July 7, 2000) (regulatory fees); 47 U.S.C. � 158 and Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees Set Forth in Sections 1.1102 through 1.1107 of the Commission's Rules, 13 FCC Rcd 13614 (1998) (application fees). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80; see also Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See 47 U.S.C. � 309(j). See 47 U.S.C. � 254(d); 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. � 3512(b) (establishment and maintenance of systems of accounting and internal controls);
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-422A1.txt
      • agree that the proposed forfeiture amount, $1,120,000, is somewhat excessive in light of these gross revenues and LLD's financial situation. Accordingly, and in light of the seriousness of the violation, we reduce the forfeiture amount from $1,120,000 to $750,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that LLD Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1100, 64.1150. For collection, the Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-423A1.txt
      • after finding that the carrier had made a few payments before notification of potential enforcement action. By contrast, ATNC made no payments prior to the Enforcement Bureau's letter, and still has never committed to pay off its arrearage within a specified timeframe. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, America's Tele-Network Corp. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred fifty-four thousand dollars ($154,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating section 254 of the Act, and section 54.706 of the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-424A1.txt
      • ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.� 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Business Discount Plan, Inc. IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.� 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4), that Business Discount Plan, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) for violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December 1997 to December 1998 governing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-425A1.txt
      • the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 152 unsolicited advertisements identified above. We have further determined that 21st Century Fax is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $1,107,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Ltd. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-445A1.txt
      • further supports this conclusion. See In Re Application of National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 9026 (MMB 1999). 26. Accordingly, we find that a forfeiture should be assessed against the licensee for willfully omitting material facts in its Form 396 in violation of Section 73.1015 of the Commission's Rules. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing forfeitures. However, these guidelines do not enumerate a base forfeiture amount for a willful material omission. Under these circumstances, the forfeiture must be assessed taking into account the relevant statutory factors in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, including
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-446A1.txt
      • liable for forfeitures in the amount of $80,000 for each of the two conversions based on an apparently forged letter of agency, and $40,000 for each of the remaining 12 violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $640,000. 35. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that AT&T Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $640,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-46A1.txt
      • circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the LDDI NAL. Further, LDDI has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $2,000,000 forfeiture penalty for which it is liable. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4), that LDDI SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) for violating sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-67A1.txt
      • full amount of the proposed forfeiture paid, within 30 days of issuance of the NAL, Get-Aways has neither filed a response nor paid the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $85,500 for violating provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules that prohibit the transmission of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. See 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-71A1.txt
      • it would be inappropriate to reduce the forfeiture. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, after reviewing the information filed by BCI and its response, we find that BCI is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1 million. Ordering clausess Accordingly, it is ORDERED pursuant to section 503 (b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Brittan Communications International, Inc. shall forfeit to the United States government the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258 and section 64.1160 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1160, and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-82A1.txt
      • pending; Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 720-27 (1995). Rev. Valentin has not filed for (let alone received) a Commission license. He intentionally broke the law. Therefore, we deny Rev. Valentin's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's NOF. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 1.80 and 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80 and 1.115(g), Rev. Valentin's Application for Review IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rev. Valentin and counsel. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center, (202)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-106A1.txt
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If PTT continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke PTT's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, PTT Telekom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($137,000) for violating the Act and our rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, PTT Telekom, Inc. SHALL
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-124A1.txt
      • 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Vista Services Corporation, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), Vista's Motion for Stay filed on November 22, 2000, IS DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December to August, 1999 governing interexchange carrier conversions. FEDERAL
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-128A1.txt
      • basis for reconsidering the AT&T NAL, except with regard to the Krumweide and Agnew complaints as discussed above. Further, AT&T has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty for the remaining 11 violations. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that AT&T Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of five hundred twenty thousand dollars ($520,000) for violating Sections 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-154A1.txt
      • reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.� 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Coleman Enterprises, Inc. IS DENIED. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Coleman Enterprises Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from June, 1998 through May, 1999 governing interexchange carrier conversions.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-184A1.txt
      • ORDERING CLAUSES For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 503 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503, the Application for Review filed by SBC Communications IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-187A1.txt
      • on April 9, 2001, we have not received a response or payment of the proposed forfeiture. Having received nothing that would undermine the factual findings described in the NAL, we conclude that the violations as described occurred and that the proposed forfeiture should issue. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), PTT Telekom, Inc. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($137,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-18A1.txt
      • 320, was filed on October 28, 1998, for tests performed on August 10, 1998. A test should have been performed before August 10, 1999, and should have been reported to us on or before December 31, 1999. Conclusion The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules. ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision. ``Repeated'' means
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-197A1.txt
      • 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part the January 31, 2001 application for review filed by Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("Arnold"), licensee of Station KNEC-FM, of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the Enforcement Bureau ("EB") found Arnold liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $14,000 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 11.35 (failure to install and maintain operable Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment), 73.1350 (failure to have a transmitter control system in place which would allow the transmitter to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-206A1.txt
      • 1.115(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(a), the application for review of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 200132080019/MG IS HEREBY DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the opposition to the application for review filed by Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc. IS HEREBY DISMISSED as moot. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the date of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A3.txt
      • Facility Check NA NA NA NA Resale: Provisioning Resale POTS PR-2-04 Avg. Interval Completed - Dispatch (6-9 Lines) 2.00 NA NA NA NA NA 6.00 NA PR-2-05 Avg. Interval Completed - Dispatch (>= 10 Lines) 4.00 NA 8.00 NA 14.50 NA NA NA PR-2-01 Avg. Int. Completed - Total No Dispatch - Business 1.52 2.00 1.07 2.09 1.03 2.15 1.07 1.80 1a,2b,3b,4a,1n,4n PR-2-03 Avg. Int. Completed - Dispatch (1-5 Lines) - Bus. 4.31 NA 13.00 4.50 6.60 5.25 4.00 3.00 2a,3a,4a PR-2-01 Avg. Int. Completed - Total No Dispatch - Residence 0.76 NA 0.57 3.50 0.45 2.00 0.89 5.00 2a,3a,4a,3n PR-2-03 Avg. Int. Completed - Dispatch (1-5 Lines) - Res. 7.93 5.00 6.41 NA 9.95 NA 5.89 NA 1a PR-4-02 Average
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-215A1.txt
      • missed certain statutory deadlines. Nevertheless, the argument that this affects the Commission's authority to impose a forfeiture is frivolous and the Bureau properly rejected it. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc.'s application for review IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-222A1.txt
      • 2001 Released: August 10, 2001 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we dismiss the May 24, 2001 application for review filed by Page-A-Phone, Inc. ("Page-A-Phone"), licensee of Stations WRV927 and WXR916, of the Forfeiture Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the Enforcement Bureau found Page-A-Phone liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,500 for willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Rules by failing to file license renewal applications for paging Stations WRV927 and WXR916 prior to the expiration of the authorizations for the stations. 2. The Forfeiture Order issued in this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-240A1.txt
      • Liberty argues that the Commission disregarded its own procedures and guidelines when it imposed a forfeiture of $1,425,000 for Liberty's unlicensed operations. The Commission did not consider mitigation evidence, Liberty asserts, and improperly assessed the maximum forfeiture allowable by the statute without reference to the base forfeiture amount and the upward and downward adjustment factors specified in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. Moreover, Liberty contends, a maximum forfeiture is not warranted in this case because no public harm resulted from its infractions. Liberty argues that this issue too should be remanded for development of a fuller record. Lastly, Liberty submits that the Commission's denial of the subject applications together with imposition of a maximum forfeiture is an excessive and virtually unprecedented sanction,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-242A1.txt
      • operate the relevant translator stations at any time in the future absent further Commission or court action giving it authority to do so. Such affidavit shall be filed no later than 10 days from the release of this order. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Peninsula Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) for violating Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301, by operating the seven captioned translator stations subsequent to midnight May 19, 2001. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-249A1.txt
      • the broadcaster and the CATV operator, for the common good of the parties and of the viewing public in their communities''). See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Clarification Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4142, 4143 (1993) (``Cable Must Carry Clarification Order''). See also 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a). E.g., Cable Systems Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 24298 (2000) ($127,500 forfeiture against cable operator for violation of Section 614 of the Communications Act). Further, in Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Carriage of Television Broadcast Signals by Cable Television Systems, Report and Order, 1 FCC Rcd 864, 889 (1986), the Commission stated that a cable
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-254A1.txt
      • stated above, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Limited Reconsideration filed by AT&T Communications, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that AT&T Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of five hundred and twenty thousand ($520,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order On Reconsideration shall be sent by certified United States mail to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-255A1.txt
      • in light of its $2,000 net operating loss for 1997. The record must contain more than such unsupported statements in order for the Commission to evaluate the effect of financial indicators such as a carrier's gross revenues or net losses. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that All American Telephone Company, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of nine hundred twenty thousand dollars ($920,000) for violating Section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred interexchange carrier conversions. Payment shall be made in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-264A1.txt
      • radio, or the applicant for authorization of a software defined radio shall submit a copy of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters upon request by the Commission. Failure to comply with such a request within 14 days or such additional time as the Commission may allow may be cause for denial of authorization, forfeiture pursuant to � 1.80 of this chapter, or other administrative sanctions. Section 2.1043 is revised to read as follows: � 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.txt
      • provisioning. See PR-4-01 (Provisioning of Special Services - Missed Appointments - Total IOF). Specifically, the competitive LEC missed appointment rates for February through June 2001 were 14.29 percent, 15.79 percent, 9.38 percent, 21.05 percent, and 3.57 percent respectively. Verizon's performance for its own retail special services for the same period was 4.98 percent, 1.24 percent, 1.09 percent, 2.39 percent, and 1.80 percent respectively. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275. In Pennsylvania, the retail analogue for this measure historically has been all retail ``special services,'' which predominantly includes relatively simple voice-grade services, rather than the more complex services that CLECs order. Id. at paras. 275-276. The revised retail analogue uses provisioning of retail DS-3s instead of retail special services because the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-270A1.txt
      • or other enforcement actions taken against small entities. Indeed, Section 223 requires agencies to provide for the reduction, and under appropriate circumstances for the waiver, of civil penalties for violations of a statutory or regulatory requirement by a small entity. Under appropriate circumstances, an agency may consider ability to pay in determining penalty assessments on small entities. In amending Section 1.80 of its rules in 1997 to incorporate guidelines for assessing forfeitures, the Commission also made clear that its forfeiture policies are consistent with this approach. We cannot in good conscience alter the uniform standards of behavior required of all auction participants, even if to do so might assist small businesses. Public confidence in the fairness of our auction process could
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-301A1.txt
      • US Notary has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that that there is any basis for reducing or rescinding the forfeiture proposed in the US Notary NAL. We therefore impose a $90,000 forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F. R. � 1.80, that US Notary, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $90,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. Payment of the forfeiture shall
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-308A1.txt
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $3,000 for violations of section 1.65. The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase in this base amount under certain upward adjustment criteria contained in the Rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement: the egregiousness of the misconduct and SBC's ability to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-326A1.txt
      • its ruling was correct and that no basis exists to warrant reversal. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules, AA Beep's application for review of the MO&O released on April 19, 2001, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the five thousand dollar ($5,000) monetary forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-331A1.txt
      • back ongoing state workshops intended to measure compliance with the checklist items in section 271(c)(2)(B). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). The Commission has made clear that certain companies, such as the incumbent LECs, should expect higher forfeitures such that the amounts are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, at 17100, para. 27 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In 2000, SBC had operating revenues of $51.4 billion, with an operating income of $10.7 billion. SBC Telecommunications, Inc., 2000 Annual Report at 4 (2001). Section 503(b)(2)(B) authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-336A1.txt
      • liability for a forfeiture each of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000). This amount was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act, taking into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations. The base forfeiture amount for unauthorized transfer of control as set forth in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules is $8,000 which may be adjusted upward in the case of repeated or continuous violations. We find that the violations in this case were repeated in that they occurred with respect to the five Sullivan III stations that initially Glencairn was seeking to acquire. In addition, each day of an unauthorized transfer constitutes a separate offense.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-339A1.txt
      • 25-35 (suggesting adoption of both fines and forfeitures payable to the U.S. Treasury and damages payable to injured carriers). The Commission has made clear that certain companies, such as the incumbent LECs, should expect higher forfeitures such that the amounts are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, at 17100, para. 27 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In 2000, SBC had operating revenues of $51.4 billion, with an operating income of $10.7 billion. SBC Telecommunications, Inc., 2000 Annual Report at 4 (2001). Section 503(b)(2)(B) authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-341A1.txt
      • 8 FCC Rcd 5110, 5114-15 �� 16-18 (Rev. Bd. 1993) (appropriateness of forfeiture for violation of 47 C.F.R. � 1.17 absent a finding of deception). We believe that, under the Commission's forfeiture standards, the category most relevant to Kay's misconduct is ``Failure to respond to Commission communications,'' for which the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 per instance. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4) Note. Because Kay's nonresponsiveness was of a continuous nature, we adjust the forfeiture upwards to $10,000. Id. 101. The record also shows that Kay's Motion to Enlarge, Change, or Delete Issues filed by Kay on January 12 and 25, 1995 lacked candor. Although lack of candor may warrant revocation of all licenses, we believe that it is appropriate to limit
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-365A1.txt
      • find that ATNC has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the ATNC NAL. Further, ATNC has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that ATNC Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,020,000 for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture shall be
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-383A1.txt
      • basis for granting Brockway's application for review. See generally 47 U.S.C. � 155(c)(5). 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Brockway's application for review of the MO&O released on July 6, 2001, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the seventeen thousand dollar ($17,000) monetary forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-44A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-44A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-44A1.txt
      • C.F.R. � 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof shall be on the Enforcement Bureau as to all of the foregoing issues. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(3)(A), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, whether an Order of Forfeiture in an amount not to exceed two hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($275,000) shall be issued against Family Broadcasting, Inc. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating Sections 1.89, 11.35, 73.49, 73.1015, 73.1350(a), 73.1560(a), 73.1560(b), 73.1690(b)(2) and/or 73.3526 of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in connection with the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-48A1.txt
      • As we stated in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, forfeitures should not be simply an affordable cost of doing business. We continue to believe that a forfeiture in the amount of $113,000 is appropriate based on all the facts and circumstances of this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Matrix IS LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 254 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 254, and Section 54.706 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-58A1.txt
      • date of this letter "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent . . . ." Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter. Notwithstanding the substantial nature of the violations described here and the severity with which we regard them, we find you qualified to remain a Commission licensee and conclude that grant of your application would
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-77A1.txt
      • date of this letter "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent . . . ." Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter. Notwithstanding the substantial nature of the violations described here and the severity with which we regard them, we find you qualified to remain a Commission licensee and conclude that grant of your application would
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-87A1.txt
      • amount of $40,000 for each of 17 apparent violations. ATNC's apparent intentional and repeated misconduct represents a gross dereliction of its verification obligations; accordingly, we propose increasing the forfeiture by 50%, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $1,020,000. 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Tele-Network Corp IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,020,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.txt
      • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-104A1.txt
      • Notice of Intent to Revoke Interconnection Authority. Before revoking interconnection authority under the provisions of this section, the Commission, or the Enforcement Bureau under delegated authority, will issue a written Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority, or a Joint Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority pursuant to ��1.80 and 1.89 of this chapter. * * * * * 6) Sections 68.400 through 68.412 are deleted. In the Matter of 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review of Part 68 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No. 99-216, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 24944 (2000)(Part 68 Report and Order). See In the Matter of Establishment of the Media Bureau,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.txt
      • 0.33 0.48 0.91 1.47 Programming total $32.62 $31.58 $31.46 $31.23 $27.16 Standard error 0.28 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.87 Equipment $3.45 $3.39 $3.05 $1.88 $1.00 Standard error 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.21 0.21 Programming and equipment $36.07 $34.97 $34.51 $33.11 $28.16 Standard error 0.29 0.33 0.29 0.38 0.93 Number of channels 63.81 60.37 56.41 43.22 32.56 Standard error 0.83 0.97 0.84 1.29 1.80 Rate per channel � $0.518 $0.536 $0.577 $0.765 $0.900 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 No. of satellite channels 46.61 44.38 42.89 33.75 25.29 Standard error 0.68 0.77 0.71 1.23 1.63 Rate per satellite channel $0.711 $0.735 $.0.764 $1.019 $1.211 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 July 1, 1999 Programming total $30.68 $29.75 $29.72 $29.68 $26.34 Standard error
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
      • intent to revoke interconnection authority. Before revoking interconnection authority under the provision of this section, the Commission, or the Wireline Competition Bureau under delegated authority, will issue a written Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority, or a Joint Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority pursuant to �� 1.80 and 1.89 of this chapter. * * * * * Subpart D - Conditions for Registration 120. Section 68.317 is amended by revising paragraph (g) as follows: � 68.317 Hearing aid compatibility volume control: technical standards. * * * * * (g) These incorporations by reference of paragraph 4.1.2 (including table 4.4) of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard ANSI/EIA-470-A-1987
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-112A1.txt
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 23. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. As noted in the NAL, however, the circumstances of this case justify a substantial increase to this base amount pursuant to upward adjustment criteria contained in the rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. Specifically, the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-124A1.txt
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-125A1.txt
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-12A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-12A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-12A1.txt
      • for review of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 200132080019/MG IS HEREBY DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Opposition to Citicasters' petition for reconsideration, filed September 6, 2001 by Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc., IS HEREBY DISMISSED, and Citicasters' reply to this opposition IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the date of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-142A1.txt
      • history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular circumstances of this case, we find that AT&T Wireless is apparently liable for an aggregate forfeiture in the amount of $2.2 million for its apparent violations of Sections 1.65, 20.18(g)(1)(i) and 20.18(g)(2) of the Rules. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $3,000 for violations of Section 1.65. The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase in the base amount for a Section 1.65 violation under the upward adjustment criteria contained in Section 1.80 and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. First, AT&T Wireless's conduct here
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-150A1.txt
      • Id. � 632. News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2001'' (released October 30, 2001). NAICS Code 513120. U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size," Table 4, NAICS code 513120 (issued Oct. 2000). 5 U.S.C. � 603(c). See, e.g., In the Matter of the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, CI Docket No. 95-6, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17109 (1997). _______________________ _____________________________ Federal Communications Commission FCC 02 -150 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02 -150 � �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � � @& ! 1 A Q a q � ` � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-183A1.txt
      • the amount of $40,000 for each of 20 apparent violations. WebNet's apparent intentional and egregious misconduct represents a gross dereliction of its verification obligations; accordingly, we propose increasing the forfeiture by 50%, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $1,200,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that WebNet Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,200,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-213A1.txt
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the listed violations are: $4,000 for operation of a radio station at an unauthorized location; $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements; $8,000 for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational; $7,000 for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-226A1.txt
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 489 unsolicited advertisements identified in Table 1 and discussed above. We have further determined that Fax.com is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $5,379,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Fax.com, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $5,379,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-258A1.txt
      • that an $80,000 forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 64 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of $5,120,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, One Call Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,120,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-259A1.txt
      • forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 18 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), 226(b)(1)(B), and 226(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of $1,440,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, ASC Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,440,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-259A1_Erratum.doc
      • forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 18 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), 226(b)(1)(B), and 226(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of $1,440,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, ASC Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,440,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.txt
      • mitigate its refusal to offer shared transport for intraLATA traffic. For all of the reasons we have discussed above, we find that SBC's conduct justifies the forfeiture amount that we proposed in the NAL. We therefore affirm the $6,000,000 forfeiture amount originally proposed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-293A1.txt
      • obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise in willful violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, Section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Eure Family Limited Partnership's application for review IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-294A1.txt
      • of the instances cited in the NAL and requests that the Commission reduce the total base forfeiture amount to $6,500. AT&T Wireless also argues that the Commission's decision in the NAL to triple the aggregate base forfeiture amount was unwarranted. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining AT&T Wireless's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-299A1.txt
      • require the Commission to duplicate administrative or other proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations, nor do these regulations supercede procedures permitted or required by other statutes or regulations. In particular, the assessment and collection of monetary forfeitures imposed by the Commission will be governed initially by the procedures prescribed by 47 U.S.C. 503, 504 and 47 CFR 1.80. After compliance with those procedures, the Commission may determine that the collection of a monetary forfeiture under the collection alternatives prescribed by this subpart is appropriate but need not duplicate administrative or other proceedings. Fees and penalties prescribed by law, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 158 and 159, and promulgated under the authority of 47 U.S.C. 309(j) (e.g., 47 CFR Part 1,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-2A1.txt
      • the forfeiture proposed in the NAL. We therefore issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 against 21st Century Fax(es) Limited for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Limited IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-300A1.txt
      • January 19, 2001, the Commission released the referenced NAL against Callais in the amount of $133,000. Callais filed its response to the NAL on March 5, 2001, requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion 12. The Commission assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Callais's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-312A1.txt
      • a consumer-grade portable receiver to tune into the station does not meet the transmission system monitoring and control requirements of Section 73.1400. Based on the evidence, we further find that A-O apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1400 of the Rules by failing to have adequate transmission system monitoring and control. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits for transmitting tower antennas in Section 1.1310. However, the FCC has set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for failure to comply with other public safety related rules, such as prescribed antenna structure lighting
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-319A1.txt
      • 73.3540 of the Commission's rules (application for voluntary assignment of control), by transferring control of Station WMGA(AM) to Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. (``DBI''), Aubrey Smith (``Smith''), and Sam and Gracie Zamarron (``the Zamarrons'') without prior authorization of the Commission; and for its willful and repeated failure to respond to official Commission correspondence ordering it to respond. 2. Also, pursuant to Section 1.80(g) of the Commission's rules, this Order constitutes notice of opportunity for hearing to determine whether, in addition to or as an alternative to license revocation and/or cease and desist order, monetary forfeitures should be imposed against RMI for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules. II. Background 3. The licensee of record for Station WMGA(AM) is RMI. However, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-31A1.txt
      • amount. Moreover, in view of the intentional nature of Peninsula's current violations, we do not find that Peninsula's past broadcast record warrants a downward adjustment. Accordingly, we find that the proposed $140,000 forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Peninsula Communications, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) for violating Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301, by operating the seven captioned translator stations subsequent to midnight May 19, 2001. 10. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
      • - 207802Projects - Interconnection Trks-days 4.19 tbd 3.58 tbd 2.77 tbd 2.52 tbd 2.48 tbd 2 - 207902Dys-Held & Denied Intercnnect Trks 5.67 n/a 44.50 n/a 23.00 n/a 4.00 n/a 52.00 n/aabcde 2 - 208000Elct 2 Digital Line Sharing 0.21 0.33 0.20 0.33 0.17 0.33 0.19 0.33 0.18 0.33 2 - 208100Elct Man-2 Digital Line Sharing 2.09 6.00 2.04 6.00 1.80 6.00 1.91 6.00 2.53 6.00 2 - 208301Interconn Trunks New 4.16 7.00 3.96 7.00 3.73 7.00 3.62 7.00 2.98 7.00 2 - 208302Interconn Trunks Augment 3.10 4.00 2.71 4.00 2.91 4.00 2.69 4.00 3.09 4.00 3 - 300200Elct:LEX-CLEO/LASR Facilities Syntax 0.03 0.33 0.03 0.33 0.02 0.33 0.04 0.33 0.04 0.33 3 - 300201Elct:LEX-CLEO/LASR Directory Listings Syntax 0.05 0.33 0.05 0.33
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
      • B.2.22.13.1.42W Analog Loop w/LNP Non- Design/<10 circuits/Dispatch In/FL (hours) 18.22 18.66 14.99 19.98 14.87 2,4,5 B.2.22.13.2.12W Analog Loop w/LNP Non- Design/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 30.66 1 B.2.22.14.1.1Other Design/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 18.27 40.57 3,5 B.2.22.15.1.1Other Non-Design/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 21.76 21.29 18.87 19.55 15.52 4,5 B.2.22.17.1.1LNP (Standalone)/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 0.23 7.01 43.55 23.80 2,3,4,5 B.2.22.17.1.2LNP (Standalone)/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.12 4.34 4.24 3.16 1.80 B.2.22.17.2.2LNP (Standalone)/>=10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 0.69 1.94 2.30 4.31 0.62 4,5 B.2.22.18.1.1Digital Loop < DS1/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 32.20 29.48 27.96 35.60 42.39 B - 40 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] May June July August September Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 Florida Performance Metric Data B.2.22.19.1.1Digital Loop
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-58A1.txt
      • filed a Petition for Immediate Suspension and Permanent Revocation of Equipment Certification. This pleading is being considered as a supplemental filing to the Application for Review. At the time of Highway's authorization for the subject equipment, the terminology for grant of an equipment authorization was ``Type-acceptance.'' Type-acceptance and Certification are substantively equivalent in all respects pertinent here. See 47 CFR 1.80 (a) (3). See, Toshiba Corp., 57 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1619 (1985). Id. Id. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-58 r��� F �t�K�\
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-61A1.txt
      • of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b), the Application for Review filed by SBC Communications Inc. IS GRANTED as to its request for a modification of the forfeiture amount and IS DENIED in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80, SBC Communications Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty-four thousand dollars ($84,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules and orders requiring ILECs promptly to post on the ILEC's Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.txt
      • violator's ability to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture so that forfeitures against ``large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business.'' These factors together persuade us that we should propose the statutory maximum forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-93A1.txt
      • Commission: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny an application for review filed by KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. (``KASA Radio''), licensee of Radio Station KDAP(AM), of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O") issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"), the Enforcement Bureau found KASA Radio liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 73.54(d) (failure to provide a copy of the station's antenna resistance and reactance measurements during an inspection); 73.1350(c)(1) (failure to have the proper monitoring equipment installed at the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.txt
      • decisions to establish milestones for spacecraft CDR and commencement of physical construction of a spacecraft, to include milestone requirements in the rules, to require licensees to post bonds, and to limit the right to file applications of parties who establish a pattern of missing milestones, we find that rules specifying additional forfeiture penalties are not warranted at this time. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules already provides adequate authority for the Commission to impose forfeiture penalties upon failure to comply with a rule or a license condition. Accordingly, in the event that a party applies for satellite licenses without the intent to construct or launch a satellite, we will determine whether starting a proceeding to consider forfeiture penalties is warranted. 11.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1_Erratum.doc
      • decisions to establish milestones for spacecraft CDR and commencement of physical construction of a spacecraft, to include milestone requirements in the rules, to require licensees to post bonds, and to limit the right to file applications of parties who establish a pattern of missing milestones, we find that rules specifying additional forfeiture penalties are not warranted at this time. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules already provides adequate authority for the Commission to impose forfeiture penalties upon failure to comply with a rule or a license condition. Accordingly, in the event that a party applies for satellite licenses without the intent to construct or launch a satellite, we will determine whether starting a proceeding to consider forfeiture penalties is warranted. 11.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-107A1.txt
      • conduct is considered by the Commission or its delegated authority in determining an appropriate sanction, Qwest will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of Qwest's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. Qwest waives any rights it may have under any provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. � 504. In the event that this Consent Decree is rendered invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, this Consent Decree shall become null and void and may not be used in any manner in any legal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-109A1.txt
      • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for operation at an unauthorized location. However, a significant upward adjustment is justified in this case since Western's violation continued for three and a half years after WTB informed Western that the tower ``may have'' a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1.txt
      • 47 C.F.R. �� 1.108, 1.117. We also note that, should information be brought to our attention at some later date suggesting that the parties to a lease implemented pursuant to this proposed forbearance option had not complied with the requirements and conditions we adopt for such action, the Commission may initiate a formal or informal investigation. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80, 1.89, 1.91, 1.92. See Craig O. McCaw, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5836, 5880-5881 � 76 (1994), aff'd sub nom. SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995), recon. in part, 10 FCC Rcd 11786 (1995). See generally Policy Statement. We note that this proposal encompasses only services covered by the Report and Order and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1_Erratum.doc
      • 47 C.F.R. �� 1.108, 1.117. We also note that, should information be brought to our attention at some later date suggesting that the parties to a lease implemented pursuant to this proposed forbearance option had not complied with the requirements and conditions we adopt for such action, the Commission may initiate a formal or informal investigation. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80, 1.89, 1.91, 1.92. See Craig O. McCaw, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5836, 5880-5881 � 76 (1994), aff'd sub nom. SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995), recon. in part, 10 FCC Rcd 11786 (1995). See generally Policy Statement. We note that this proposal encompasses only services covered by the Report and Order and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-158A1.txt
      • Section 309(e) of the Act, the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof shall be on WPBI as to the issues set forth in paragraph 115 herein. 118. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, whether an Order of Forfeiture in an amount not to exceed three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) shall be issued against Zawila, AES, and/or CVES, for willfully and/or repeatedly violating Sections 73.1015, 73.1350(a), 73.1560(a), 73.1560(b), 73.1690(b)(2), 73.1125, 73.3526, and/or 17.57 of the Rules. 119. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A1.txt
      • the licensee's public file. Any applications meeting these requirements will be treated as minor modifications. As with any minor modification, if upon Commission review the Commission deems it in the public interest to seek comment on an MSS ATC application, the Commission at its discretion may provide public notice and opportunity for comment. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. Flexibility Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 15546-47, � 30. Id. at 15546-47, � 30. Id. at 15546, � 30; see also discussion supra n.5. See, e.g., Cingular/Verizon Comments at 15 & n.47. Cingular and Verizon, for example, cite Webster's Dictionary for the proposition that ``ancillary service is by definition subordinate or auxiliary to the primary service.'' Id. Cf., e.g., Globalstar
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A1_Erratum.doc
      • the licensee's public file. Any applications meeting these requirements will be treated as minor modifications. As with any minor modification, if upon Commission review the Commission deems it in the public interest to seek comment on an MSS ATC application, the Commission at its discretion may provide public notice and opportunity for comment. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. Flexibility Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 15546-47, � 30. Id. at 15546-47, � 30. Id. at 15546, � 30; see also discussion supra n.5. See, e.g., Cingular/Verizon Comments at 15 & n.47. Cingular and Verizon, for example, cite Webster's Dictionary for the proposition that ``ancillary service is by definition subordinate or auxiliary to the primary service.'' Id. Cf., e.g., Globalstar
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-181A1.txt
      • application for review filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC of the Enforcement Bureau's October 18, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order for NAL No. 200132260001 IS hereby GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and DENIED in all other respects. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Radio One Licenses, LLC shall pay the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001, FRN
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-199A1.txt
      • a forfeiture of $283,800. We also admonish Verizon for not accurately and timely posting affiliate transactions on its Internet site in violation of section 272(b)(5) of the Act and section 53.203(e) of the rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 220(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 220(d), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that the Verizon Telephone Companies are hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of two hundred eighty-three thousand, eight hundred dollars ($283,800) for violating section 32.27(c) of the Commission's rules in transactions with its affiliates. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-231A1.txt
      • separately, a report, supported by a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury of a corporate officer, stating its plan to come into compliance with the relevant payment and reporting rules discussed here. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Globcom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $806,861 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of the release
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-233A1.txt
      • Adopted: September 30, 2003 Released: October 2, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we grant complaints from Reverend Michael G. Taylor and from Catherine P. Henry and find that AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC (``AMFM''), licensee of Station WWDC-FM, Washington, DC, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the station during its May 7 and 8, 2002, broadcasts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-233A1_Erratum.doc
      • Adopted: September 30, 2003 Released: October 2, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we grant complaints from Reverend Michael G. Taylor and from Catherine P. Henry and find that AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC (``AMFM''), licensee of Station WWDC-FM, Washington, DC, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the station during its May 7 and 8, 2002, broadcasts
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-234A1.txt
      • 30, 2003 Released: October 2, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we grant, in part, and deny, in part, complaints from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Robert E. Amling alleging that, during its broadcast of the ``Opie & Anthony Show'' program on August 15, 2002, over Station WNEW(FM), New York, New York, the station licensee, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. (``Infinity Broadcasting ''), aired
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-235A1.txt
      • Officer. See also Letter from Adam Kupetsky, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Wiltel, to Marlene H. Dortch, CC Docket No. 96-128 (Sept. 8, 2003) (Wiltel Sept. 8 Ex Parte) at 8; APCC Sept. 22 Certification and Audit Ex Parte at 3-4. As discussed below, a SBR and a PSP may agree to other compensation and reporting requirements. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). See, e.g., NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated and NOSVA Limited Partnership, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, FCC 03-75 (rel. Apr. 7, 2003); Business Options, Inc., Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, FCC 03-68 (rel. Apr. 7, 2003). Letter from Albert H. Kramer, Robert F. Aldrich, Attorneys for APCC, to Marlene
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-258A1.txt
      • by failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing areas that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. We also find that the four licensees violated our rules by failing to file any Environmental Assessment statements with the Commission although each was required to do so by September 1, 2000. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, we recently determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules. We propose the $10,000
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-264A1.txt
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000 for each violation. The base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000 for each
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-267A1.txt
      • our Do-Not-Call requirements, as described above. We have further determined that AT&T is apparently liable in the amount of $10,000 for each of the violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules, for a total of $780,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that AT&T Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $780,000 for willful or repeated violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-268A1.txt
      • would tie an application's cut-off rights to the date on which the application became ``acceptable.'' The staff followed established licensing procedures in this case, granting the WKVE upgrade without consideration of the formerly licensed facilities of WEND. III. Ordering Clauses 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Southern Entertainment, Inc. licensee, Station WKVE(FM), Semora, North Carolina, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty ($19,250.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.17. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-299A1.txt
      • Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC of the Commission's July 22, 2003 Memorandum Opinion and Order for NAL No. 200132260001 IS hereby DENIED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Radio One Licenses, LLC shall pay the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001, FRN
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-302A1.txt
      • this is such a violation. B. Future Cases We do not address Infinity's arguments regarding the constitutionality of revocation or imposition of separate forfeitures for multiple violations because we do not impose those sanctions in this case. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-seven thousand five-hundred dollars ($27,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-332A1.txt
      • Commission cannot now penalize A-O for violation of the RFR rules after having reviewed A-O's RFR analysis; and that the Commission ``articulated no rational basis'' for specifying a $10,000 base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 73.1310 of the Rules. III. Discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining A-O's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.txt
      • long distance services before receiving Commission authorization, and related non-discrimination and separate affiliate requirements). See SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 19,923 (2003), petition for review pending sub nom. SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, No. 03-1147 (D.C. Cir. filed May 23, 2003). See id. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D); see The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,101, para. 27 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Policy Statement); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), Note to (b)(4). Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996); see Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,109, paras 51-52. 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review-Streamlining and Other Revisions
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-336A1.txt
      • has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for modifying the forfeiture proposed in the Fax.com NAL. As discussed above, Fax.com has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Fax.com, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $5,379,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227, section 64.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200, and the Commission's orders concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-336A1_Erratum.doc
      • has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for modifying the forfeiture proposed in the Fax.com NAL. As discussed above, Fax.com has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Fax.com, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $5,379,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227, section 64.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200, and the Commission's orders concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
      • no less favorable to those under which the incumbent LECs provides such UNEs to itself). We note that sections 202 and 203 of the Act provide specific penalties for noncompliance. See 47 U.S.C. �� 202(c), 203(e). These amounts have been adjusted to $7,600 for each offense and $330 for each day of the continuance of the offense. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). Thus, any incumbent LEC policy or practice that has the effect of prohibiting commingling could subject the incumbent LEC to enforcement action for imposing an ``undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage'' upon competitive LECs. In addition, the Commission's rules establish a five-year statute of limitations for violations of sections 202 and 203. Id. at � 1.80(c)(2). CompTel Comments at 97-98
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-43A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-43A1.txt
      • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules. However, we think that a substantial proposed forfeiture for this violation is warranted. Violation of the E911 rules is extremely serious because these rules are intended to promote safety of life. The Phase I requirements set forth in Section 20.18(d) have been
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-67A1.txt
      • find that WebNet has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the WebNet NAL. Further, WebNet has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that WebNet Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,200,000 for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture SHALL BE
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-71A1.txt
      • that children may have been in the audience at the time that the material at issue was broadcast on January 9, 2002 and, therefore, the material broadcast is legally actionable. By broadcasting this material, WKRK-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-77A1.txt
      • Id. � 632. News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2001'' (released October 30, 2001). NAICS Code 513120. U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size," Table 4, NAICS code 513120 (issued Oct. 2000). 5 U.S.C. � 603(c). See, e.g., In the Matter of the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, CI Docket No. 95-6, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17109 (1997). See 5 U.S.C. � 801(a)(1)(A). See 5 U.S.C. � 604(b). _______________________ _____________________________ (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-77 # $ % & ( = " � � & � &
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-94A1.txt
      • also instruct the Enforcement Bureau to do a follow-up investigation to determine whether Ms. Salazar has come into compliance and, if she has not, to take or recommend further enforcement action as appropriate, including the possibility of initiating a license revocation proceeding. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Ms. Salazar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $39,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(q) of the Act and Sections 73.1350(a) and 17.51 of the Rules and for willfully violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a), and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03D-01A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03D-01A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03D-01A1.txt
      • failed to comply with Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934. PCI was assessed a base amount forfeiture of $10,000 for each of the seven stations ($70,000), adjusted upward because of PCI's intentional and continued illegal operations. Id. at 2836. The Forfeiture Order in the amount of $140,000 is being enforced by a United States Attorney. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(5) (judicial enforcement of forfeiture order). A de novo collection action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Case No. A02-295 (JWS). (Off. Notice Exh. 22.) Notice of Unlawfulness After the assignments failed, PCI reversed field and argued to the Commission and to the D.C. Circuit that the Commission lacked statutory authority to issue conditional
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.txt
      • 68.318(c) (Line seizure by automatic telephone dialing systems) and section 68.318(d) (Telephone facsimile machines; Identification of the sender of the message)). ______________________________ RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU (EB) EB Docket No. 04-176 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses forfeiture penalties applicable to common carriers. ______________________________ RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU (IB) IB Docket No. 04-177 Part 23 - International Fixed Public Radio Communication Services - Contains rules applicable to international terrestrial fixed communications systems, including general licensing and application filing requirements, technical standards, and operations. Part 25 - Satellite Communications - Contains rules
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-10A1.txt
      • evidence, that AT&T willfully or repeatedly refused to provide service to GECCS in violation of section 201(a) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons we cancel the NAL and dismiss the order to show cause. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section � 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,000,000 issued to AT&T Corporation for willfully and repeatedly violating section 201(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 201(a), by failing to provide communication service upon the reasonable request of General Electric Capital Communications Systems,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-128A1.txt
      • judicial review has lapsed; "Indecency Laws" means 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. "Inquiries" means investigations of alleged violations of the Indecency Laws by Clear Channel Stations that have resulted in LOIs to Clear Channel, or to other licensees that relate to Clear Channel Stations; "NALs" means Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including (i) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C., et al., released March 12, 2004 (FCC 04-47), (ii) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning Capstar TX Limited Partnership released March 18, 2004 (FCC 04-36), and (iii) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning Clear Channel Broadcasting
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-138A1.txt
      • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount for the operation at an unauthorized location or frequency of $4,000. However, we think that a substantial upward adjustment of this base forfeiture amount is warranted. As DIRECTV implicitly acknowledged in its October 3, 2003 STA request, strict adherence to the rules that govern modification of satellite authorizations is critical to minimizing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-139A1.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: June 14, 2004 Released: June 18, 2004 By the Commission: This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties established in that section to account for inflation since the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.txt
      • noted that, should information be brought to our attention at some later date suggesting that the parties to a spectrum lease implemented pursuant to this proposed forbearance option had not complied with the requirements and conditions we adopt for such action, the Commission could initiate a formal or informal investigation. Further Notice at � 268 n.461; see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80, 1.89, 1.91, 1.92. Further Notice at �� 263-265. All parties commenting on the forbearance proposal supported the Commission's general approach. See, e.g., Blooston Rural Carriers Comments at 11-12; Cantor Fitzgerald Telecom Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 2-4; Nextel Communications Comments at 6-9; Nextel Partners Reply Comments at 8; PCIA Comments at 5; RTG Comments at 2-5; SBC Comments at
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-16A1.txt
      • Facility ID No. 65526 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 23, 2004 Released: January 27, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell, and Commissioners Copps, Martin, and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc. (``Young''), licensee of Station KRON-TV, San Francisco, California, aired program material during the ``KRON 4 Morning News'' show on October 4, 2002, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-17A1.txt
      • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 26, 2004 Released: January 27, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the captioned stations during the July 19, November 14, 19, 26 and 27 and December 27, 2001, broadcasts of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-186A1.txt
      • C.W.H. Broadcasting, in which the Bureau granted in part C.W.H. Broadcasting's Petition for Reconsideration of the C.W.H. Broadcasting Forfeiture Order, that the forfeiture was further reduced from $3,500 to $500 based on an inability to pay. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Sutro's Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-189A1.txt
      • due to financial hardship. What has been the effect of such waivers? Enforcement. The Commission has been aggressively enforcing the Commission's EAS rules. In 2003, for example, the Enforcement Bureau took approximately 80 EAS enforcement actions. Nonetheless, some broadcasters have failed to install or properly maintain EAS equipment. The base forfeiture amount set in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the rules for an EAS violation is $8,000. We seek comment on whether we should increase the base amount or otherwise impose higher forfeitures in this area, and on whether there are additional ways to better ensure compliance. We also seek comment on whether we should seek legislation from Congress to increase the maximum forfeitures in this area from
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.txt
      • See FCC Form 471, Item 23. FCC Form 471, Block 6. See infra Appendix B. See also FCC Form 471, Block 6. See Schools and Libraries Second Further Notice, 18 FCC Rcd at 26939 para. 66. Id. See Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. � 1. Id. See 48 C.F.R. � 52.203-2. See supra part III.A.2. 47 U.S.C. �503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(1). Under the Communications Act, a party ``willfully'' violates the Communications Act or a Commission rule or order when it knows it is taking the action in question, irrespective of any intention to violate the Commission's rules. See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 para. 4 and n.14 (2002) (citing, among other
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-197A1.txt
      • copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Americans for Decency, 3431 W. Thunderbird Road, Box 275, Phoenix, Arizona 85053-5641. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary See Letter from Americans for Decency to Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, received May 7, 2003. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 Though not specifically defined in the complaint, ``dry humping'' is commonly understood to consist of two people rubbing their clothed bodies together for sexual stimulation. U.S. Const., amend. I; 47 U.S.C. � 326 (2002). 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-356, 106 Stat. 949 (1992) (setting the current safe harbor of 10 p.m. to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-199A1.txt
      • "Inquiries" means investigations of alleged violations of the Indecency Laws by Emmis Stations that have resulted in LOIs to Emmis, or to other licensees that relate to Emmis Stations; ``MO&O'' means that certain Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Commission released April 8, 2004 (File No. EB-00-IH-0401, FCC 04-62); "NAL" means a Notice of Apparent Liability issued pursuant to Section 1.80(f) of the Rules; "Parties" means Emmis and the Commission; "Rules" means the Commission's regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. BACKGROUND Both the Commission and Emmis acknowledge that any proceedings that might result from the Forfeiture Orders, the MO&O, the Inquiries and/or the Complaints will be time-consuming and will require substantial expenditure of public and private
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-19A1.txt
      • application for review of the MO&O, Alpha reiterated its claim and supplemented its tax returns with a letter from its accountant. Finally, Alpha described itself as a ``small ambulance company with 13 employees and six ambulances,'' that experienced financial decline, and that ``lacked intent to operate without a license.'' discussion In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.'' The forfeiture guidelines establish a $10,000 base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized transmissions. In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-205A1.txt
      • tower should be reduced because SpectraSite took remedial measures to correct the lighting outage prior to notification from the Commission, and that in fact, it had previously made an appointment with contractors for November 7, 2002, to restore the tower's lighting. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303 (1999). In examining SpectraSite's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-209A1.txt
      • Chairman Powell issuing a statement; Commissioners Copps and Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing separate statements; and Commissioner Adelstein approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the licensees of the CBS Network Stations, as defined herein, aired program material on February 1, 2004, at approximately 8:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, during the halftime entertainment show of the National Football League's Super Bowl XXXVIII, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Based upon our review
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-224A1.txt
      • NAL/Acct. No. 200432080020 Facility ID No. 20354 Adopted: September 22, 2004 Released: October 15, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Entercom Sacramento License, LLC (``Entercom''), licensee of Station KRXQ(FM), Sacramento, California, broadcast indecent material on two separate occasions, in apparent willful and repeated violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we conclude that Entercom is apparently liable
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-225A1.txt
      • Forfeiture Adopted: September 22, 2004 Released: November 23, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement. I. Introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we grant two complaints and find that WQAM License Limited Partnership (``WQAM''), licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the station on September 9 and 10, 2003. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-226A1.txt
      • petition for reconsideration of the Reconsideration Order IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Carl E. Person's Petition to Intervene and for a Rehearing IS DISMISSED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-227A1.txt
      • U.S.C. �� 301 and 319(c); 47 C.F.R. � 73.33(b). We will not impose a forfeiture for KRI's unauthorized construction in 1999 because when, as here, the violation involves a station not yet licensed, no forfeiture penalty can be imposed if the violation occurred more than one year prior to issuance of the Notice of Apparent Liability. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c). KRI's argument was originally based, in part, on its November 20, 2000, court case. As we have already granted tolling treatment for the court case, that matter could not provide a basis for any additional time through waiver. See Birach Broadcasting Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 1414 (2003), petition for recon. pending. See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FCC, 259 F.2d
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-231A1.txt
      • FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 28, 2004 Released: December 22, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Entercom Kansas City License, LLC, and Entercom Wichita License, LLC (collectively ``Entercom''), licensees of Stations KQRC-FM, Leavenworth, Kansas, and KFH(AM), Wichita, Kansas, respectively, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material during the April 4, April 29, May 2, and May 3, 2002,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-242A1.txt
      • America'' On April 7, 2003 ) ) ) ) ) NAL/Acct. No. 200532080003 File No. EB-03-IH-0162 Adopted: October 5, 2004 Released: October 12, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the licensees of 169 Fox Television Network stations (``Fox Network Stations'') apparently broadcast indecent material during an episode of the Fox program ``Married By America'' on April 7, 2003, in apparent willful violation of the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-259A1.txt
      • offers to sell and/or lease of such equipment. In the instant case, we find that ACR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, by advertising the PLB-200 to the general public, prior to certification without the disclaimer notice required by Section 2.803(c). Proposed Forfeiture. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-268A1.txt
      • their respective direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliated entities which either hold authorizations for television and radio broadcast stations (individually referred to herein as a ``Viacom Station'') located throughout the United States or which distribute network or syndicated television and radio programming to broadcast stations (collectively, ``Viacom''). II. Background Viacom is subject to certain Forfeiture Orders issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC's Rules involving alleged violations of the Indecency Laws (collectively, ``Forfeiture Orders''). Viacom is subject to certain Notices of Apparent Liability issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC's Rules involving alleged violations of the Indecency Laws (``NALs''). Viacom (and certain affiliates of the CBS Television Network and UPN) are subject to various Letters of Inquiry from the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-270A1.txt
      • the unusual and unique facts and circumstances of this case and does not represent a more generalized weakening of our enforcement obligations. In the future, if entities fail to prepare and file EAs and the facts and circumstances warrant enforcement action, we will take such action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the rules, the prior Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 20332100004 IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Mr. William J. Hackett, Director of Regulatory Compliance, Western Wireless Corporation, 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20004,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-272A1.txt
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that radio
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-272A1_Erratum.doc
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that radio
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-281A1.txt
      • reliance on its field study was reasonable and was a good faith basis for Radio One's belief that KKBT(FM) was not required to undertake the obligations set forth in Section 1.1307(b)(3) concerning stations that exceed the 5% RFR MPE threshold. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining the Mt. Wilson Licensees' responses, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-293A1.txt
      • rendered by Commission officials may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a mitigating factor to be considered in determining forfeiture amount). Minority misstates the Forfeiture Order's holding. The Bureau cited only 17 announcements in setting the forfeiture amount at $10,000. See Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26611, 26616-17 at � 15. See id.; 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2); note to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). Under section 503(b) of the Act, each prohibited broadcast is deemed to constitute a separate offense. See Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26611, 26616-17 at � 15, n.55. Id. See Pine-Aire Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. (WRLS-FM), supra. See Xavier University, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4920 (1990) (the Commission defers to the ``reasonable, good faith judgments'' exercised by licensees
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-297A1.txt
      • this, we are unable to determine that it cannot pay the forfeiture amount and we will not reduce the forfeiture on the basis of A-O's inability to pay. We have examined A-O's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we again conclude that A-O willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.1310, 11.35, 73.1125, and 73.1400 of the Rules and that the appropriate forfeiture amount is $25,000. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-34A1.txt
      • of specific cases. We therefore deny Infinity's petition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-35A1.txt
      • separate violation. For purposes of this proceeding, we will use our traditional per-program approach. We hereby make clear that, in the future, we may treat situations like this as multiple, repeated violations with the accompanying increase in forfeitures. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($27,500.00) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-36A1.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: February 20, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. Introduction 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we grant a complaint, and find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Capstar''), licensee of Stations WAVW(FM), Stuart, Florida, and WCZR(FM) Vero Beach, Florida, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the stations on May 31, 2002. Based upon our review of the facts and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-39A1.txt
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. In this case, Samson imported and sold five distinct models. We find that a forfeiture amount of $7,000 is apparently warranted for each model. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-39A1_Erratum.doc
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. In this case, Samson imported and sold five distinct models. We find that a forfeiture amount of $7,000 is apparently warranted for each model. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-47A1.txt
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2004 Released: March 12, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a statement; and Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we grant a complaint from Stephen M. Arner and find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly broadcasting indecent material over the stations on March 13, 2003. Based upon our review of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-49A1.txt
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: March 8, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a statement; and Commission Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., licensee of Station WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan, aired program material during the ``Howard Stern Show'' on July 26, 2001, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that Infinity is apparently liable
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-51A1.txt
      • below, Salazar nevertheless seeks a substantial reduction in the assessed forfeiture, based upon her inability to pay, her unfamiliarity with Commission requirements, her efforts to correct the noted violations, and her belief that the Commission's base forfeiture scheme is arbitrary and excessive. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Salazar's petition, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-51A1_Erratum.doc
      • below, Salazar nevertheless seeks a substantial reduction in the assessed forfeiture, based upon her inability to pay, her unfamiliarity with Commission requirements, her efforts to correct the noted violations, and her belief that the Commission's base forfeiture scheme is arbitrary and excessive. discussion The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Salazar's petition, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-57A1.txt
      • 503(b)(2) of the Act and our rules, we find that Qwest is apparently liable for each of its 46 apparent violations of section 252(a)(1) of the Act, for a total proposed forfeiture of $9 million. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Qwest Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9 million for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-69A1.txt
      • 2001 Permit. Based on these facts, we issue this Notice of Apparent Liability for forfeiture in the amount of $4,000, the base amount for operation at an unauthorized location. We find no facts warranting upward or downward adjustment in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, KM Radio of St. Johns, L.L.C., licensee, Station KWKM(FM) St. Johns, Arizona, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1350(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �73.1350(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-72A1.txt
      • require the Commission to duplicate administrative or other proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations, nor do these regulations supercede procedures permitted or required by other statutes or regulations. In particular, the assessment and collection of monetary forfeitures imposed by the Commission will be governed initially by the procedures prescribed by 47 U.S.C. 503, 504 and 47 CFR 1.80. After compliance with those procedures, the Commission may determine that the collection of a monetary forfeiture under the collection alternatives prescribed by this subpart is appropriate but need not duplicate administrative or other proceedings. Fees and penalties prescribed by law, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 158 and 159, and promulgated under the authority of 47 U.S.C. 309(j) (e.g., 47 CFR Part 1,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A1.txt
      • 24958 FRN No. 0003474905 Facility Id. No. 60153 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 7, 2004 Released: April 8, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing program material during two segments of the ``Howard Stern Show'' on April 9, 2003, that apparently violate the federal restrictions regarding the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-89A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-89A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-89A1.txt
      • broadcast on May 30 and on June 1, 2001, was patently offensive and therefore apparently violated the Commission's indecency rule. The NAL proposed a monetary forfeiture penalty of Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00) based upon KNDD(FM)'s broadcast of apparently indecent material on two separate occasions. On February 27, 2002, Entercom filed a response to the Bureau's NAL in accordance with Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules. Entercom contended that there is a clear absence of any sexual or excretory context or import in the complained-of material because there is no discussion about the sexual or excretory functions of the male genitalia. Thus, Entercom argued that the material was not patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-94A1.txt
      • timely information at regular intervals throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 19. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-95A1.txt
      • length. After receiving a large number of consumer complaints against WCSS, the Enforcement Bureau, along with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, launched an investigation into the consumers' allegations of slamming. As a result of this investigation, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability on January 15, 2004, finding WCSS apparently liable for 13 slamming violations. Pursuant to section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, the Commission ordered WCSS to pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced within 30 days of the NAL's release, i.e., on February 17, 2004. WCSS did not file a response to the NAL nor did it pay the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-9A1.txt
      • Inc. has apparently violated section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders by changing the preferred telephone service carriers of 10 consumers on 13 occasions, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $560,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $560,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 17. IT
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-11A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-11A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-11A1.txt
      • 65310 NAL Account No. 20053208000 FRN No. 0004945911 Facility ID No. 6662 Facility ID No. 67071 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 12, 2005 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Univision Radio License Corporation (``Univision Radio License) and Tichenor License Corporation (``Tichenor License''), licensees of the above-captioned stations, apparently violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1206, by broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our review
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-142A1.txt
      • of this section in a future time period.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines do not contain any specific guidelines regarding forfeitures for violations of the closed captioning rules. We seek comment on whether the Commission should establish specific per violation forfeiture amounts for non-compliance with the captioning rules, and if so, what those amounts should be. We direct commenters to Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's rules for guidance on existing forfeitures for violations of other Commission rules. Compliance Reports. In the Closed Captioning Report and Order, the Commission placed the responsibility for compliance with the closed captioning requirements on video programming distributors, both for efficient monitoring and enforcement of the rules, as well as to allow for a convenient, single entity to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-145A1.txt
      • the Commission (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by InPhonic, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that InPhonic is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $819,905 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, InPhonic SHALL
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-146A1.txt
      • further order Teletronics to file with USAC within thirty days all Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date it began providing telecommunications service in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Teletronics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $692,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Teletronics,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-147A1.txt
      • willfully and repeatedly failed to respond to the Bureau's LOIs. Specifically with respect to the LOI issued August 18, 2004, Carrera provided only an untimely and partial response and with respect to the LOIs issued November 5, 2004 and January 21, 2005, Carrera never responded in any manner, despite repeated attempts by Bureau staff to elicit responses from Carrera. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. However, misconduct of this type warrants an upward adjustment because it exhibits a disregard for the Commission's authority that cannot be tolerated, and, more importantly, it threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to adequately investigate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-156A1.txt
      • failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by TMI, in accordance with the agency's red light rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Telecom Management, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $280,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-157A1.txt
      • failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by OCMC, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that OCMC, Inc.is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,761 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-167A1.txt
      • of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of BCE Nexxia's operating authority, including disqualification of BCE Nexxia's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that BCE Nexxia is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $282,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of the release
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-168A1.txt
      • file with USAC within thirty days all Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets and amended Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date that Telecom House commenced providing telecommunications services in the United States to the date of this NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Telecom House is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $529,300 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Telecom
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-174A1_Erratum.pdf
      • stations must act as cells and be interconnected to (be part of) the ESMR system. 54 Such certification must be filed with the Commission within fifteen days of EA license expiration. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.946(d). Failure to provide a timely response may result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-174 16 27. Failure to certify the implementation of ESMR technology by the deadline will result in the automatic cancellation of the EA license (and any associated site-based authorizations the licensee has elected to relocate to the ESMR portion of the band) for failure to construct an ESMR system in the ESMR Band.55
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-185A1.txt
      • order CSII to file with USAC within thirty days all annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date that CSII commenced providing telecommunications services in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that CSII is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $462,638 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, CSII SHALL
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-186A1.txt
      • the Commission (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by Global Teldata, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Global Teldata II, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-209A1.txt
      • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Maria L. Salazar of the Commission's March 16, 2004 Order for the NAL/Acct. referenced above IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN. Payment of the $15,500 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-47A1.txt
      • our national do-not-call requirements, as described above. We have further determined that Dynasty is apparently liable in the amount of $11,000 for each of 70 violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, for a total of $770,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $770,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 64.1200(c)(2) as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-57A1.txt
      • 8-9, Motorola comments at 20, Cisco comments at 12, Dell comments at 4, Intel comments at 7 and SDR Forum comments at 7. See Dell comments at 4 and Intel comments at 7. See Cingular/BellSouth comments at 28, Dell comments at 4, Intel comments at 5 and ITI comments at 7. See NTIA comments at 33-36. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 2.944. This section previously addressed only the requirement to submit a copy of radio software upon request. The issue of the submission of radio software is also addressed in this Report and Order. See Notice at 26893. See Notice at 26893. See ARRL comments at 9 and NPSTC comments at 20. See Intel comments at
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1.txt
      • 42), 25181-82 (App. B, proposed Section 25.151(e)). Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25143 (para. 42), citing 47 U.S.C. � 309(b)(2). PanAmSat Comments at 11. See also SIA Reply at 6. Spacenet Comments at 44. See 47 C.F.R. � 25.273(a)(3) (no one may transmit in any manner that causes unacceptable interference to the authorized transmission of another licensee); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(2) (violators of Commission rules may be subject to forfeiture liability). Section 25.277(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 25.277(e), requires temporary-fixed earth station operators to cease operations upon notification of harmful interference. We emphasized that we were not contemplating revision of the process for coordinating temporary fixed earth stations and terrestrial operations in shared bands, but rather inviting proposals
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1_Erratum.doc
      • 42), 25181-82 (App. B, proposed Section 25.151(e)). Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25143 (para. 42), citing 47 U.S.C. � 309(b)(2). PanAmSat Comments at 11. See also SIA Reply at 6. Spacenet Comments at 44. See 47 C.F.R. � 25.273(a)(3) (no one may transmit in any manner that causes unacceptable interference to the authorized transmission of another licensee); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(2) (violators of Commission rules may be subject to forfeiture liability). Section 25.277(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 25.277(e), requires temporary-fixed earth station operators to cease operations upon notification of harmful interference. We emphasized that we were not contemplating revision of the process for coordinating temporary fixed earth stations and terrestrial operations in shared bands, but rather inviting proposals
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-66A1.txt
      • copy SHALL BE ADDRESSED to the named counsel of record, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 3-B443, Washington, D.C. 20554. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, whether an ORDER FOR FORFEITURE in an amount not to exceed $300,000, shall be issued against KCI for the violation of Sections 74.1231(b), 74.1231(f), 74.1231(g), and 74.1284(b) (FM translator provisions) and 73.1015 (submitting truthful statements to the Commission) of the Commission's rules. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in connection with the possible forfeiture liability noted
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-104A1.txt
      • repeatedly violated a Commission order by failing to provide the information and documents the Bureau directed it to provide. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $97,500 is warranted against LocateCell for its apparent willful or repeated violations of our directive. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, LocateCell IS NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $97,500 for willfully or repeatedly failing to respond fully to the Bureau's subpoena, as required by the Citation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.txt
      • seizure by automatic telephone dialing systems) and section 68.318(d) (Telephone facsimile machines; Identification of the sender of the message)). RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU (EB) EB Docket No. 06-153 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints and formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses the forfeiture process applicable to providers of telecommunications services. Section 1.89 addresses the Notice of Violation process applicable to providers of telecommunications services. RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU (IB) IB Docket No. 06-154 Part 23 - International Fixed Public Radio Communication Services - Contains rules applicable to international terrestrial fixed communications systems, including general licensing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.txt
      • C.F.R. �� 73.1350(a), 73.1560(b) and (d), 73.1745(a). 47 C.F.R. � 11.35(a). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6). h� h h� h T � � - - " � � � � � � � � � � � h� hv h�> h�' h� � � � � � � � � � See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, � 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. �� 1.91, � 1.221. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.21(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.221(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.92(a).
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-127A1.txt
      • for LPSI's apparent nonpayment violations. We thus find LPSI apparently liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $329,000 for its apparent willful and repeated failure to make contributions into the USF. Although the Commission typically downward adjusts a proposed forfeiture when a company voluntarily discloses a violation of our rules, we decline to do so today. Specifically, pursuant to section 1.80(b)(4) of our rules, the Commission has adjusted downward proposed forfeitures where a target of an investigation voluntarily disclosed its violations prior to the initiation of any investigative or enforcement actions. When deciding to discount a proposed forfeiture because of a regulatee's voluntary disclosure, the Commission reasonably expects the regulatee to take swift and effective corrective actions, and to comply with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-128A1.txt
      • (D.C. Cir. 1993). See, e.g., Greater Muskegon Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15464, 15472-73, �� 22-23 (1996). 47 U.S.C. �� 312(a) and (c). 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.91(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.91(c). 47 C.F.R. � 1.92(c). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. �� 1.17, 1.65. See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, � 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. � 312(d). 47 C.F.R. � 1.91(d). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-128 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-128 h� h�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-136A1.txt
      • subject to the Commission's ``red light rule'' as a result of any non-payment detailed above and the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by TMI in accordance with the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, TMI SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $237,992 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-138A1.txt
      • totaling millions of dollars in withheld contributions. In light of the seriousness, duration and scope of the apparent violations, we find that the forfeiture of $1,133,761 proposed in the OCMC NAL is warranted. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that OCMC, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $1,133,761 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 24. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-13A1.txt
      • 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing unauthorized Class B digital devices in the United States. Within the last year specifically, which is the time period covered by this NAL, Behringer apparently marketed 50 models of unauthorized Class B digital devices in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Behringer's violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules were willful and repeated. Section 1.80(b)(4) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-140A1.txt
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 34 unsolicited advertisements to the 8 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that National Business Information Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $153,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that National Business Information Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $153,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-151A1.txt
      • to no objective criteria, and is not ... equivalent to a failure to comply with painting and lighting requirements.'' Radio X states further that the violation is ``unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable on its face and as applied.'' We disagree. Neither the tower painting Rule set forth in Section 17.50 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between a painted or an unpainted antenna structure, and in both cases the base forfeiture amount of $10,000 is the starting point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. The Commission has explained that forfeiture amounts reflect ``the degree of harm or potential for harm that may arise from the violation.'' As previously discussed, no tower
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-173A1.txt
      • as amended (``Act'') and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration, Telemundo of Los Angeles License Corporation' petition for reconsideration, and Radio One Licenses, LLC's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order ARE DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-174A1.txt
      • 65 allows the application of the public MPE limits, the licensee must provide appropriate signs warning the public of excessive RFR levels. Americom did not provide such signs. We have examined Americom's application for review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Americom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules and that the appropriate forfeiture amount is $10,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Americom's application for review of the Forfeiture Order
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-179A1.txt
      • to Competition and Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry, GAO-04-8 (Oct. 2003) � 10, FN 11, infra. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-179 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-179 CPI Cable Price (basic-plus-expanded basic) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% Normalized Price Year 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 Cable 2005 $43.04 Cable 1995 $22.35 Cable Rates and the CPI, 1995-2005 ! " , ��% { h � � h � B* � ��$ � � � � � j Ff� " � � - ���������ƽ����ަ��������ѐ�ѐ����������ѐ����������ѐ � & '' kd @ E � � � � � � � � 4Pv-������q·�ڄOp� ,hr�nX^``��^��-�ekyyᯂ�7��v�h�5E�q��2-�''q��NB� ���-5�\��`�v�&�L=� "�|�1�
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-17A1.txt
      • and the need for and the legal basis of our ability, if any, to regulate in this area. We have invited the public to submit comments for our consideration, and are currently reviewing those comments and determining our next steps. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that NBC Telemundo License Co., licensee of Station KWHY-TV, Los Angeles, California is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $32,500 for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules by its October 9, 2004, broadcast of the movie ``Con El Corazon En La Mano.'' IT
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1.txt
      • for which payment was already due, by filing with each PSP any overdue call data reports for payphone calls it has completed, and for providing each PSP any overdue statements of an officer certifying payment accuracy and completeness. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $466,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-186A1_Erratum.doc
      • for which payment was already due, by filing with each PSP any overdue call data reports for payphone calls it has completed, and for providing each PSP any overdue statements of an officer certifying payment accuracy and completeness. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $466,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-18A1.txt
      • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 21, 2006 Released: March 15, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Tate issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the CBS Television Network (``CBS'') affiliated stations and CBS owned-and-operated stations listed in Attachment A aired material that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Specifically, during the Our Sons and Daughters episode of the CBS program ``Without a Trace'' on December 31, 2004, at 9:00 p.m. in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-19A1.txt
      • SUPER ) BOWL XXXVIII HALFTIME SHOW ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2006 Released: March 15, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Tate issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we impose a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $550,000 against CBS Corporation (``CBS''), as the licensee or the ultimate parent company of the licensees of the television stations listed in the Appendix (``CBS Stations''). We find that CBS violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and the Commission's rule regulating the broadcast of indecent material in its
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-22A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-22A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-22A1.txt
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 98 unsolicited advertisements to the 37 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that First Choice Healthcare, Inc. is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $776,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that First Choice Healthcare, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $776,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-30A1.txt
      • provisions of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Therefore, the forfeiture amount proposed herein takes into account the continuing nature San Jose's apparent violations, but relates to the company's marketing of Models RA-45, RA-46, RK-104 and RK-304 within the last year. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the marketing of unauthorized equipment. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In determining the appropriate forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-37A1.txt
      • ``have not been properly analyzed by the Commission.'' ACR also notes that it ``has had a long history of compliance with Commission rules,'' and further contends that the ``quantum'' of the proposed forfeiture was unreasonable. discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-48A1.txt
      • Phase II service in response to valid PSAP requests in violation of Section 20.18(f) of the Rules in 41 instances. We note that 25 of these 50 violations occurred in markets in which DCS is the system licensee, and 25 occurred in markets in which ACC is the system licensee. B. Proposed Forfeiture Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, Dobson's apparent violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules were willful and repeated. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may assess
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-49A1.txt
      • and 2003 TRS program contribution when due; (3) a total penalty of $50,000 for filing an inaccurate annual worksheet; and (4) a total penalty of $150,000 for failing to submit quarterly and annual worksheets. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Globcom, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $715,031 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06D-01A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06D-01A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06D-01A1.txt
      • does not ask that any forfeiture be applied in this case. SFUSD admits that under usual circumstances a $10,000 base forfeiture would be imposed for violation of the PIF rule. But SFUSD asserts that its current deficit condition demonstrates an inability to pay even the base amount. SFUSD has not persuaded of its inability to pay a reasonable forfeiture. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. The evidence presented by SFUSD on its financial condition does not prove an absolute inability to pay any forfeiture. Considering the record as a whole, a $10,000 forfeiture is appropriate for SFUSD's erroneous ``Yes'' certification in connection with maintaining a deficient PIF. CONCLUSION The Enforcement
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-100A1.txt
      • included 28 models of its devices as non-compliant and that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL is excessive. Behringer also claims that it has implemented affirmative measures to ensure compliance with the FCC equipment authorization and related requirements. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture set forth in the NAL was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the guidelines enunciated in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeiture liability, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs the Commission to take into account the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior offenses and ability to pay; the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and such other matters as justice may require. We
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-105A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for the violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes an
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-106A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes an important
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-125A1.txt
      • of control; $4,000 for a failure to file required forms or information; and the statutory maximum for each service for misrepresentation and a lack of candor. Further, the Commission allows a maximum forfeiture of $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed shall not exceed $1,325,000 for any single continuous violation. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Unremedied,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-131A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 218 unsolicited advertisements to the 132 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Extreme Leads, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,377,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Extreme Leads, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,377,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-133A1.txt
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 209 unsolicited advertisements to the 45 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,133,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-134A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 29 unsolicited advertisements to the 18 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $130,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $130,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-135A1.txt
      • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventeen unsolicited advertisements to the thirteen consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that MHJP, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that MHJP, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-146A1.txt
      • Commission's related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that QuoteMaster is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $43,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that QuoteMaster is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $43,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-147A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 356 unsolicited advertisements to the 110 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,168,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,168,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-148A1.txt
      • forfeiture methodologies described herein are not adequate to deter violations of our USF rules, our statutory authority permits the imposition of much larger penalties and we will not hesitate to impose them as circumstances require. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that VCI is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,047,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, VCI
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-150A1.txt
      • Reply Comments at 10. BellSouth Comments at 22-23; USTelecom Comments at 5; Verizon Comments at 29. See Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15823-24, � 47. See also Program Management NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 11342, � 83. Cf. the five-year statute of limitations for violations of section 220(d) of the Act. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(2). These record retention requirements apply to all agents of the recipient, including, without limitation, NECA, and any documentation prepared for or in connection with the recipient's high cost benefits. See GVNW Comments at 17-18 (seven years); Dobson Comments at 18-19 (two years); NTCA Reply Comments at 6 (three years). We also note that USTelecom opposes any expansion of current document
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-152A1.txt
      • believe a $36,000 forfeiture is appropriate for Sinclair's violations. This represents the base amount for the single broadcast of the ABF program over each of the nine above-captioned Sinclair stations on September 11 or 12, 2004. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Sonshine is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-153A1.txt
      • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $71,500 (seventy-one thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3),
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-154A1.txt
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 28 unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Construction Expo, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $126,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Construction Expo, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $126,000 (one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-155A1.txt
      • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seven unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Trinity Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $31,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Trinity Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $31,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-156A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-157A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-158A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the ``omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-165A1.txt
      • (2006). See id. See also International Telecom Exchange, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6232 (2006) and Universal Telecommunications, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6579 (2006). See 47 U.S.C. �258(a). See 47 C.F.R. �64.1120. 47 C.F.R. �1.95. Id. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-54, released December 9, 2003. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-58, released December 24, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80 (b)(2). The Kintzel brothers have engaged in a pattern of misconduct that spans more than five years and now multiple enforcement proceedings. Their conduct represents a systemic abrogation of their obligations as a common carrier and demonstrates a blatant disregard for Commission Rules. We therefore believe it is appropriate to consider assessing the statutory maximum for each of these recent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.txt
      • and FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12569, paras. 248 & 249. 47 U.S.C. � 224. Knology, Inc. v. Georgia Power Company, 20 FCC Rcd 2424 (Feb. 9, 2005). See EAS Waiver Extensions Granted to Very Small Cable Systems, Public Notice, DA 06-1373 (rel. July 3, 2006). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D); see The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,101, para. 27 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Policy Statement); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), Note to (b)(4). Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996); see Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,109, paras 51-52. 47 C.F.R. � 257(c)(2). (...continued from previous
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-191A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV V-Chip technology requirements promote
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-1A1.txt
      • thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) against 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. d/b/a LocateCell.com (``LocateCell''). LocateCell violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents. LocateCell acted in apparent and willful and repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (``Rules''). 2. On July 13, 2006, the Commission issued to LocateCell a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') proposing a forfeiture in the amount of ninety-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) based on LocateCell's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave LocateCell the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-208A1.txt
      • (adopting 47 C.F.R. � 76.972(c)). See Appendix B (adopting 47 C.F.R. � 76.972(e)). Although the Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a baseline forfeiture of $7,500.00 per day for violation of the leased access rules, we find at this time that a $500.00 per day penalty should be adequate to encourage prompt compliance with the customer services obligations. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.975. See 47 U.S.C. � 503. 47 C.F.R. � 76.971(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 76.971(e). Communications Act � 612(a), 47 U.S.C. � 532(a). Communications Act � 612(c)(1), 47 U.S.C. � 532(c)(1). While we do not believe that our method for determining leased access rates will result in cable operators experiencing any loss in net revenue, the relevant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-209A1.txt
      • Moreover, Austin Hughes sold units of five of the devices. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Austin Hughes apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules by marketing nine unauthorized Class A digital devices without proper verification. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Austin Hughes' violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules were willful and repeated. Section 1.80(b)(4)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-229A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least sixty-one unsolicited advertisements to the thirty-nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $423,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $423,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-230A1.txt
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-two unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $335,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $335,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-3A1.txt
      • dispute the violations, but seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed $75,000 forfeiture. San Jose claims that its violations were not intentional, that its corrective measures demonstrate good faith, and that its payment of the forfeiture would cause economic hardship. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, the Commission is required to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s); the violator's degree of culpability, history or prior offenses and ability to pay; and such other matters as justice may require. We have considered San Jose's claims in light of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-41A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-41A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-41A1.txt
      • to ensure that stations are responsive to the needs and interests of their local communities. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-45A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-45A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-45A1.txt
      • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Hawking's conduct has continued over a period that began in July 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Hawking's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.txt
      • own risk. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Ramko apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by selling or offering for sale 17 models of radio transceivers which, by their nature, are ineligible for equipment certification. Proposed Forfeiture Amount Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Ramko's violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules were willful and repeated. Section 1.80(b)(4) of
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-58A1.txt
      • concedes that the Commission may deviate from the guidelines in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 503(b)(2)(D). In any event, the Commission's established methodologies for determining the amount of the forfeiture for the particular violations at issue here do take into account the base forfeiture amounts, as well as the upward and downward adjustment criteria, specified in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission followed this methodology exactly in the InPhonic NAL. Next, with respect to section 503(b)(2)(D), InPhonic is wrong that we did not comply with the Act because the forfeiture was not sufficiently tied to InPhonic in particular. For example, with respect to the registration violation, InPhonic states that instead of ``a particularized Section 503(b)(2)(D) analysis,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-59A1.txt
      • Worksheet within the year preceding issuance of the NAL; and (3) a total penalty of $86,774 for failing to make three monthly universal service contributions within the year preceding issuance of the NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Global Teldata II, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 29. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-67A1.txt
      • or demonstrate financial hardship sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. We are, however, canceling the proposed forfeiture with respect two calls that were made one day before effectuation of the call recipient's national do-not-call registration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $748,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. We find that Dynasty's Arizona and California companies are jointly and severally liable
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-73A1.txt
      • CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), and section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.3, Carrera's Petition for Waiver is GRANTED. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Carrera IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,900 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and Commission's rules. 22. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-75A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-75A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-75A1.txt
      • was persuaded by the licensee's elaboration of previously provided information that further relief was warranted. There has been no comparable showing here. 11. We have examined CB's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules. We reverse the Bureau's decision to the extent that it improperly relied on post-investigational efforts to correct a violation as a basis to mitigate the forfeiture amount, but otherwise affirm the Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and Order finding CB Radio, Inc. liable for a forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-80A1.txt
      • Enforcement Bureau shall ``(a) [s]erve as the primary Commission entity responsible for enforcement of the Communications Act and other communications statutes, the Commission's rules, Commission orders and Commission authorizations, other than matters that are addressed in the context of a pending application for a license or other authorization . . .''). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b). Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, � 27. See Star Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 18630-33; Star NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 17657-58; Northeast Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-93A1.txt
      • FCC Rcd at 4030-31, �� 7-8. In its Reconsideration Petition, Infinity had argued that the distinction between use of the NAL per se and use of the NAL's underlying facts was meaningless because they both have ``the same punitive effect.'' See Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030, �� 6-7. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17102-04, �� 32-36 (1997); on recon., 15 FCC Rcd 303, 303-05, �� 3-5 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Reconsideration Order''). Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030-31, � 8 (citing 106 Cong. Rec. 17623 (Aug. 25, 1960); S. Rep. No. 1857, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. at
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-94A1.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit � � � � � Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB-06-IH-2271 Adopted: May 17, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007 By the Commission: On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-96A1.txt
      • finds none that support FMG's position. Accordingly, we affirm the Bureau's rejection of FMG's claim of inability to pay, which we find unsupported by the record. 16. Conclusion. We have examined FMG's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Bureau's earlier decision and, therefore, we deny FMG's application for review and affirm the Bureau MO&O finding FMG liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-102A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-103A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-104A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-105A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-106A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-107A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-108A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-109A1.txt
      • made and actions it took after it received the LOI, its history of compliance with the Commission's rules, the lack of harm to the public, and the lack of any allegation of misrepresentation on the part of Syntax-Brillian. forfeiture order The proposed forfeiture set forth in the NAL was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the guidelines enunciated in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-110A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. We recently issued Notices of Apparent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-111A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. We recently issued Notices of Apparent
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-112A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-116A1.txt
      • has failed to pay all of its TRS contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by Telrite, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Telrite Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $924,212 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-123A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-124A1.txt
      • maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that ``[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television.'' We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-129A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the seven consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $46,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $46,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-130A1.txt
      • the forfeiture based on LPSI's response to the NAL. Based on LPSI's most recent Worksheets, and USAC's assessment of the reported revenue in LPSI's Worksheets, however, we conclude that the forfeiture imposed on LPSI should be reduced to $436,765. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Local Phone Services, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $436,765 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. with any questions regarding payment procedures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this ORDER OF FORFEITURE shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to L.E. Hisken, President,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-132A1.txt
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 34 unsolicited advertisements to the 31 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $169,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc.] is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $169,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-133A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 130 unsolicited advertisements to the 59 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $695,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $695,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-143A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-three unsolicited advertisements to the forty-one consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SOS Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $244,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SOS Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $244,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-145A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $84,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $84,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-146A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,377,000 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Extreme Leads, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,377,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above. with any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-150A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eleven unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $49,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $49,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-151A1.txt
      • request that commenters addressing default provider freezes also discuss the positives and negatives of preferred carrier freezes in the telecommunications context through the lens of nearly ten years' experience with them. Finally, as noted above, the Commission's forfeiture guidelines currently establish a standard forfeiture amount of $40,000 for a violation of the Commission's rules against slamming. Forfeitures pursuant to section 1.80(b)(4) are in addition to the carrier liabilities set forth in sections 64.1160 and 64.1170 of the Commission's rules for unauthorized changes in preferred carrier. We seek comment on the applicability of this provision to instances of slamming by VRS or IP Relay providers. As with the slamming liability amounts discussed above, unauthorized providers would not be permitted to recover forfeiture
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-154A1.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EB File No. EB-06-SE-132 Adopted: June 13, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Commission: This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b), to increase the maximum forfeiture penalties established in that section to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-157A1.txt
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $27,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $27,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-161A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least forty-one unsolicited advertisements to the thirty-one consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $239,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Mexico Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $239,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-162A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the ten consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tropical Travel Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $49,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tropical Travel Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $49,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-165A1.txt
      • telecommunications services, we find that this amount represents an appropriate balance. Our proposed per violation forfeiture of $100,000, multiplied by IDT's thirteen apparent continuing violations, results in a total proposed penalty of $1.3 million. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 220(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 220(d), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that IDT is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1.3 million for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-169A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 146 unsolicited advertisements to the 70 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $739,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $739,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-170A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-nine unsolicited advertisements to the thirty consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SMC, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $348,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SMC, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $348,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-185A1.txt
      • OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: August 11, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations WIPR-TV, WIPR-FM and WIPR(AM), San Juan, Puerto Rico, and WIPM-TV, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv) and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-187A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-190A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least ninety unsolicited advertisements to the seventy-eight consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $443,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $443,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-198A1.txt
      • or other device to send at least twenty-nine unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $136,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $136,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(c)(2), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-199A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fourteen unsolicited advertisements to the twelve consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $63,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $63,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.txt
      • seizure by automatic telephone dialing systems) and section 68.318(d) (Telephone facsimile machines; Identification of the sender of the message)). RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU (EB) EB Docket No. 08-178 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints and formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses the forfeiture process applicable to providers of telecommunications services. Section 1.89 addresses the Notice of Violation process applicable to providers of telecommunications services. RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU (IB) IB Docket No. 08-179 Part 23 - International Fixed Public Radio Communication Services - Contains rules applicable to international terrestrial fixed communications systems, including general licensing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-206A1.txt
      • OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: September 5, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that W.S. Communications, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations KWGL(FM), Ouray, Colorado and KAVP(AM), Colona, Colorado (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv) and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') self-assessment, record keeping, recruitment source information,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-211A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $40,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $40,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-213A1.txt
      • No. 88541 Facility I.D. No. 54672 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: September 17, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Cumulus Licensing LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations WPEZ(FM), Jeffersonville, Georgia; WIFN(FM) (formerly WAYS (FM)), Macon, Georgia; WDDO(AM), Macon, Georgia; WAYS(AM) (formerly WWFN(AM)), Macon, Georgia; WDEN-FM, Macon, Georgia; WMAC(AM), Macon, Georgia; WMGB(FM), Montezuma, Georgia; and WLZN(FM) (formerly WMKS(FM)), Macon, Georgia (collectively, the ``Stations'' and each a ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-234A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 21 unsolicited advertisements to the 17 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tropical Travel Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $94,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tropical Travel Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $94,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-235A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least twenty-five unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $112,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $112,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-240A1.txt
      • No. 56389 Facility I.D. No. 72066 NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: October 8, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Dickey Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations WALR(AM), Atlanta, Georgia, WCNN(AM), North Atlanta, Georgia, and WFOM(AM), Marietta, Georgia (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv) and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') self-assessment, record
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-241A1.txt
      • OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: October 8, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Urban Radio I, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations WLIB(AM) and WBLS-FM, New York, New York (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') self-assessment, record keeping, interviewee information, and public file
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-250A1.txt
      • Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed June 9, 2008, by Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc. IS DENIED, that the Enforcement Bureau's May 9, 2008, decision IS AFFIRMED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc., licensee of then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) within 20 days from the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.txt
      • there is no evidence to support a finding that they were in retaliation for Mr. Thompson's indecency complaints). See Application for Review at 2 (``I demand a full hearing on this matter before the Commission. . . . to tell the Commission directly about threats . . . [and to hear Commission personnel] respond to my testimony.''). Pursuant to Section 1.80(e) of the Commission's Rules, the Commission may institute forfeiture proceedings either via a written notice of apparent liability or via a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e) and (g). Typically, however, hearings occur ``only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture.'' Id. at �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-252A1.txt
      • amount of time there and using it as a home base. Since he was not present at the main studio, we need not address whether the unpaid volunteer was managerial personnel. We affirm, therefore, the Bureau's determination that Evangelism willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules. History of Overall Compliance Argument Background The Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules permit downward adjustment of forfeitures on the basis of a minor violation, good faith or voluntary disclosure, history of overall compliance or inability pay as well as other factors within the discretion of the Commission and its staff. Discussion Evangelism again claims that it has a history of overall compliance. The Bureau rejected this claim in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-257A1.txt
      • generally applicable regulatory requirements imposed on incumbent LECs.''); Application of Puerto Rico Telephone Authority and GTE Holdings, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 3122, 3134 � 28 (1999) (stating that the requested conditions are not necessary because they ``would simply require PRTC to comply with its existing legal obligations''). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80 (forfeiture proceedings), 27.16(f) (burden of proof for alleged violations of the open platform rule). See supra note 3. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-257 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-257 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-257 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-258 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-257 Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-257 � � � $ = '' � - � � �
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-25A1.txt
      • ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-03-IH-0122 and EB-03-IH-0353 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 25, 2008 Released: January 25, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioner Tate issuing a separate statement. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the ABC Television Network (``ABC'') affiliated stations and ABC owned-and-operated stations listed in the Attachment to this NAL aired material that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Specifically, during the February 25, 2003 episode of the ABC program ``NYPD Blue,'' aired at 9:00 p.m. Central Standard Time and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-261A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eight unsolicited advertisements to the seven consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $47,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.txt
      • required to charge a SLC (e.g., is not rate-regulated by the Commission), a voluntary business choice to include a ``subscriber line charge'' on a customer's bill may not be dispositive of the type of service, residential or business, being provided. 47 C.F.R. �� 69.104(n)(1), 69.152(d)(1). Comprehensive Review Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 27. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, failure to file required forms or information carries a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 per instance and is subject to adjustment criteria. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. Comprehensive Review Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 16372, para. 27; see also 47 C.F.R. �� 54.706(e), 54.711(a). See Comprehensive Review Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-266A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 13 unsolicited advertisements to the 12 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Five Star Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $64,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Five Star Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $64,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-268A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $51,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $51,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-269A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 219 unsolicited advertisements to the 188 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,040,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,040,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-272A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $114,500 for MHJP's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $114,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-273A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $153,000 for NBIC's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9.. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that The National Business Information Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $153,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-274A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least twenty-eight unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $126,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $126,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-277A1.txt
      • Facility I.D. No. 51567 File No. BRCT-20040527AKL NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: December 22, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Fox Television Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations WDCA(TV) and WTTG(TV), both of Washington, D.C. (collectively, the ``Stations'' and each a ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1), 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5)(v), 73.2080(c)(5)(vi), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules, by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-279A1.txt
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two hundred eighty-one unsolicited advertisements to the one hundred eighty-six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,545,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,545,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-280A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $27,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $27,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-32A1.txt
      • that the programming on its station, and that of the other stations owned by Mr. Bernal, is primarily religious in nature, and that listeners' monetary donations ``help defray the costs of station operation and expand the reach of the Bernal ministry.'' discussion The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SM Radio's Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we ``take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-33A1.txt
      • stated in its Forfeiture Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Application for Review filed by Twenty-One Sound Communications, Inc. IS DENIED and the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.txt
      • February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program ``NYPD Blue'' ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. EB-03-IH-0122 and EB-03-IH-0353 FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that ABC Television Network (``ABC'') affiliated stations and ABC owned-and-operated stations listed in Attachment A, infra, broadcast indecent material during an episode of the program NYPD Blue on February 25, 2003, in willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the facts and
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-57A1.txt
      • 47 C.F.R. �� 1.903(a), 1.931(a). As discussed below, Morris requested special temporary authority (``STA'') to operate stations KNNY352 and KNNY359 but did not do so until December 14, 2005. Morris Communications, Inc., STA Requests, YD Stations KNNY352 and KNNY359, filed December 14, 2005. All licensees are obligated to know the Commission's rules. Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,099 � 22 (1997) (``The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know and comply with all of the Commission's rules.''). See supra note 49. Application for Review at 15-16. Id. See Application for Review at 16. See supra para. 26. Lakeland, 15
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-63A1.txt
      • Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox Television Network Program ``Married By America'' on April 7, 2003 ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-IH-0162 FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2008 Released: February 22, 2008 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the FOX Television Network stations listed in Attachment A, infra, broadcast indecent material during an episode of the program ``Married By America'' on April 7, 2003, in willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances in this case,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-70A1.txt
      • rules, the Commission and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture, as permitted by statute. Horizon will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed. Proposed Forfeiture for Horizon's Failures to Respond Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Horizon's failure to timely respond to the twenty-one (21) informal complaints served by CGB warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each apparent violation, for a proposed forfeiture of eighty-four thousand dollar ($84,000).
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-71A1.txt
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eighty-six unsolicited advertisements to the fifty-four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SMC, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $458,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that SMC, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $458,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-79A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-79A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-79A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $2,591,500 for Hot Lead's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9.. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4), that The Hot Lead LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $2,591,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. with
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-80A1.txt
      • request which was previously denied. Cumulus argues that as an owner of more than 260 stations, its ``numerous'' violations relative to its size, are very small, and that ``it is unfair to portray Cumulus as an entity that does not respect Commission rules.'' The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Cumulus' Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-90A1.txt
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 14 unsolicited advertisements to the 14 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $63,000.00. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $63,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-96A1.txt
      • Consequently, we find the Global Crossing Companies are liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $619,291 for their willful and repeated failure to satisfy its TRS obligations for the 2006 and 2007 funding periods. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,025,921.88 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 254(d) and 225 of the Act and sections 54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-97A1.txt
      • to timely make required regulatory fee payments for one calendar year. Therefore, we find Compass apparently liable for a $20,000 forfeiture for its apparent violation of sections 1.1154 and 1.1157 of the Commission's rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $828,613.44 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-106A1.txt
      • affirm the Bureau's determinations that the CellCom 10 includes two distinct kinds of devices, that $14,000 is the correct base forfeiture amount, and that $11,200 is the proper forfeiture amount, as adjusted to reflect Vitec's history of overall compliance. We have examined Vitec's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. We find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the forfeiture is warranted and that the Memorandum Opinion and Order should be affirmed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules, Vitec's Application for Review of the Bureau's April 20, 2007, Memorandum Opinion
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-108A1.txt
      • the violations described in the NAL. More specifically, we find that Sonshine willfully and repeatedly violated Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to air required sponsorship identification announcements. We now turn to the proposed forfeiture amount, which in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-114A1.txt
      • their cross-border 23 GHz operations be licensed, whether the Petitioners clearly understood it or not, and regardless of any oral statements made to their counsel or other representatives. We have examined the applications for review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Region's earlier decisions. Therefore, we deny the applications for review of Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More Enterprises Communications Network, Inc., Uniradio Corporation and Anderson Desk Company, and affirm the Region's Forfeiture Orders finding Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-1A1.txt
      • proposed forfeiture of $30,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to make NANP contributions, and a total proposed forfeiture of $100,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to obtain an international section 214 authorization prior to commencing international service. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that ADMA Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $672,541 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-25A1.txt
      • the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $50,000 to Hawking. Although Hawking received a copy of the NAL, it has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Hawking Technologies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $50,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a) and 15.204(d) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-26A1.txt
      • forfeiture amount of $10,000 for failure to make required regulatory fee payments. Therefore, we find Omniat is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $40,000 for its willful and repeated failure to make regulatory fee payments from 2005 to 2008. Finally, we find that Omniat has repeatedly and willfully failed to provide a timely and complete response to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Omniat's total failure to respond to the LOI warrants a substantial increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits a
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-27A1.txt
      • that the Region erred and we affirm the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, the Application for Review filed by CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS hereby DENIED. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-34A1.txt
      • of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-102A1.txt
      • to Instruction to Form 303-S-Application for Renewal of License for Broadcast Stations.'' A broadcast station requires an authorization from the Commission to operate. See 47 U.S.C. � 301. The base forfeiture amounts for failure to file a required form and for operation without an instrument of authorization are $3,000 and $10,000, respectively. See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113-15 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section 1. See, e.g., College Wesleyan Church (NAL), DA 06-2455 (MB Dec. 6, 2006) ($1500 forfeiture proposed for apparent Section 73.3539(a) violation where the license renewal application was
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-106A1_Rcd.pdf
      • the official notice. (4) You must keep a copy of your answer in your station records. � 95.15Penalties for violating the rules. (a) If the FCC finds that you have willfully or repeatedly violated the Communications Act or the FCC Rules, you may have to pay as much as $16,000 for each violation, up to a total of $112,500. (Seesection 1.80 of thischapter.) (b) If the FCC finds that you have violated any section of the Communications Act or the FCC Rules, you may be ordered to stop whatever action caused the violation. (Seesection 312(b) of the Communications Act.) (c) If a federal court finds that you have willfully and knowingly violated any FCC Rule, you may be fined up to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A7.txt
      • of Residential Fixed High-Speed Connections to Tract Households as of December 31, 2008 Sources: FCC Form 477, Part VI; Geolytics 2009 Block-Level Estimates; and Census 2000. Note: Ratios over 2 were set to 2. See Technical Notes at the end of the report. 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.400.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 >=2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perc ent age of T rac ts Number of Tracts 66,287 Median 0.55 Ratio of Residential Fixed High-Speed Connections to Tract Households U.S. Federal Communications Commission High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2008 26 19 Table 12 Distribution of Census Tracts by Ratio of Residentia l
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-132A1.txt
      • the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least 15 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Media Synergy Group, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $67,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Media Synergy Group, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $67,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), sections 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-152A1.txt
      • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $77,500 for Troescher's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Troescher Typing Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $77,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-156A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 33 unsolicited advertisements to the 15 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $528,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $528,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-160A1.txt
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventy-three unsolicited advertisements to the sixty-nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $345,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-162A1.txt
      • before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,533,000 for Hot Lead's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Hot Lead LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,533,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-163A1.txt
      • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $125,500 for RMG's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that RMG Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $125,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-164A1.txt
      • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $806,500 for SMC's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that SMC, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $806,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-165A1.txt
      • or cancelled, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $139,500 for Clean Credit's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Clean Credit, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $139,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-166A1.txt
      • $50,000 forfeiture, and we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $50,000 for Sunstar's willful and repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.� 1.80(f)(4), that Sunstar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $50,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-167A1.txt
      • impose a total forfeiture of $144,000 for Tropical Travel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Tropical Travel Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $144,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and related orders. with any questions regarding
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-168A1.txt
      • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $45,000 for Atlas's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Atlas Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $45,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-169A1.txt
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $257,500 for SOS's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that SOS Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $257,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-170A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $27,000 for Advanced Steel's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $27,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-182A1.txt
      • eligible telecommunications carriers shall retain all records required to demonstrate to auditors that the support received was consistent with the universal service high-cost program rules. . . .This documentation must be maintained at least five years from the receipt of funding.'') Cf. the five-year limitation on imposition of forfeitures for violations of Section 220(d) of the Act. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(2). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 32.2000. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b). Id. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.415, 1.419. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). See 5 U.S.C. � 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. � 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-190A1.txt
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 11 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $55,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $55,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-192A1.txt
      • Year 2009, MD Docket No. 09-65, Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 10301 (2009) (regulatory fees); 47 U.S.C. � 158 and Amendment of the Schedule of Application Fees Set Forth in Sections 1.1102 through 1.1107 of the Commission's Rules, GEN Docket No. 86-285, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 14192 (2008) (application fees). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. � 503; 47 C.F.R. � 1.80; see also Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, CI Docket No. 95-6, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See 47 U.S.C. � 309(j). See 47 U.S.C. � 254(d); 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. � 3512(b) (mandating the establishment
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-19A1.txt
      • such as antenna structure # 1026702, more than 200 feet in height must be painted and lit. See 47 C.F.R. � 17.21. International Broadcasting Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832680001 at 1 (Enf. Bur. San Juan Office, rel. November 13, 2007). IBC Application for Review at 3-4. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). IBC Application for Review at 4. International Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC2d 793, 793 (1969). See also, e.g., Cumulus Licensing Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5286 (2008)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.txt
      • at 13. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. Furthermore, for good cause, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.3, the Commission may shorten the deadlines or otherwise revise the procedures herein to expedite the adjudication of complaints. The rules adopted today explicitly authorize the Enforcement Bureau to resolve complaints alleging open Internet violations. See 47 U.S.C. �� 403, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. . See 5 U.S.C. � 603. See Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 13136-52 (App. C). See Letter from Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52 (filed Dec. 13, 2010). This Appendix lists major commenters and the short forms by which they are cited in the Order. The Commission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
      • adopted today for preserving Internet openness, the Commission will review all of the rules in this Order no later than two years from their effective date, and will adjust its open Internet framework as appropriate. 495The rules adopted today explicitly authorize the Enforcement Bureau to resolve complaints alleging open Internet violations. 496See 47 U.S.C. �� 403, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. 497See supraparas. 104-105, 113-114. 17989 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-201 VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 164. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),498an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Open Internet NPRM.499The Commission sought written public comment on the possible significant economic impact on small entities regarding the proposals addressed in the Open
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.txt
      • seizure by automatic telephone dialing systems) and section 68.318(d) (Telephone facsimile machines; Identification of the sender of the message)). RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU (EB) EB Docket No. 10-267 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints and formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses the forfeiture process applicable to providers of telecommunications services. Section 1.89 addresses the Notice of Violation process applicable to providers of telecommunications services. RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU (IB) IB Docket No. 10-268 Part 23 - International Fixed Public Radio Communication Services - Contains rules applicable to international terrestrial fixed communications systems, including general licensing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-28A1.txt
      • a light outage on June 3, 2005, but failed to contact the chief engineer. The Commission agent observed the light outage on June 4, 2005. U.S. v. Daniels, 418 F. Supp. 1074 (D.S.D. 1976). See Daniels at 1080. Daniels at 1080. See Memorandum, Opinion and Order, para. 7. 47 U.S.C. � 504(c). Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See Tidewater Communications LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 5524 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (``Memorandum Opinion and Order''). 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(g). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-28 [ \
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-48A1.txt
      • the form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Globalcom's operating authority, including disqualification of Globalcom's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Globalcom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $800,700 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A1.txt
      • Regulation, Echostar Satellite, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Attachment at 2 (Feb. 22, 2010); Letter from William M. Wiltshire and Michael Nilsson, Counsel, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (January 28, 2010). See Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 51-52 (2010). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. � 503, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. See Letter from Harold Feld, Legal Director, Public Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CS Docket No. 97-80, at 2 (Oct. 28, 2009). See Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices; Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 97-80,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-78A1.txt
      • the form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of NTS's operating authority, including disqualification of NTS's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that NTS Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $284,250 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-80A1.txt
      • We have determined that Silv Communication Inc. has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1120. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Silv Communication Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,480,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules and orders as described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.txt
      • formula including all of the capital costs and operating expenses; and (3) the telecom formula including operating expenses but no capital costs. Incumbent LEC Pole Attachment Rates, Based on ARMIS Data ($ per attachment per year) All Costs VZ NY VZ PA AT&T CA AT&T FL AT&T IL AT&T TX Qwest CO Qwest WA Cable Rate 4.58 2.16 5.43 4.92 1.80 2.16 1.58 2.48 Telecom Rate - Urbanized (5 attachers) 6.92 3.26 8.21 7.44 2.72 3.26 2.39 3.75 Telecom Rate - Non-Urbanized (3 attachers) 10.43 4.92 12.39 11.22 4.11 4.92 3.60 5.65 No Capital Costs Telecom Rate - Urbanized (5 attachers) 1.71 0.49 2.47 2.03 0.51 0.94 0.82 0.66 Telecom Rate - Non-Urbanized (3 attachers) 2.58 0.74 3.72 3.06 0.77 1.41
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-93A1.txt
      • Carolina ) ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 74070 NAL/Acct. No.: 1041420007 FRN: 0001842822 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 26, 2010 Released: May 27, 2010 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that WSOC Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WSOC-TV, Charlotte, North Carolina (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-94A1.txt
      • Boston, Massachusetts ) ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 65684 NAL/Acct. No.: 1041420006 FRN: 0004527107 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 26, 2010 Released: May 27, 2010 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION: In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), the Commission finds that WCVB Hearst Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WCVB(TV), Boston, Massachusetts (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by exceeding the commercial limitations in children's programming. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee is apparently
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-95A1.txt
      • Mississippi ) ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 48667 NAL/Acct. No.: 1041420004 FRN: 0015751217 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 26, 2010 Released: May 27, 2010 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Media General Communications Holdings, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WJTV(TV), Jackson, Mississippi (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-96A1.txt
      • Mississippi ) ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 48668 NAL/Acct. No.: 1041420005 FRN: 0015751217 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 26, 2010 Released: May 27, 2010 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Media General Communications Holdings, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WHLT(TV), Hattiesburg, Mississippi (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-97A1.txt
      • Florida ) ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 72076 NAL/Acct. No.: 1041420003 FRN: 0001842848 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 26, 2010 Released: May 27, 2010 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that WFTV, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WFTV(TV), Orlando, Florida (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-98A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-98A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-98A1.txt
      • WBDT(TV) Springfield, Ohio ) ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 70138 NAL/Acct. No.: 1041420002 FRN: 0000013011 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 26, 2010 Released: May 27, 2010 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), we find that ACME Television Licenses of Ohio, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station WBDT(TV), Springfield, Ohio (the ``Station''), willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-99A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-99A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-99A1.txt
      • Washington ) ) ) ) ) Facility I.D. No. 35606 NAL/Acct. No.: 1041420008 FRN: 0006579841 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: May 26, 2010 Released: May 27, 2010 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that KSKN Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Station KSKN(TV), Spokane, Washington (the ``Station''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.670 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the limits on commercial matter in children's programming. We also find that the Licensee apparently violated Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules by failing
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-100A1.txt
      • their obligations to honor callers' privacy requests. Amendments to the Commission's Enforcement Rules The Act provides for additional forfeiture penalties for violations of subsection 227(e) of the Communications Act, and new procedures for imposing and recovering such penalties. In order to fully implement the Truth in Caller ID Act, the Commission proposed amendments to its forfeiture rule, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. The proposed amendments specified the forfeiture penalties the Commission proposed to assess for violations of the Truth in Caller ID Act, and proposed procedures for imposing penalties and recovering such penalties. The Commission also proposed some minor revisions to our forfeiture rules to address issues not directly related to the Truth in Caller ID Act. For the reasons discussed below,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-10A1.txt
      • businesses where more than one person may use the same fax machine. That question is not at issue here and our decision here not to impose a forfeiture does not imply agreement with Progressive Business's views. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against Progressive Business WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), the citation issued to Progressive Business, Inc. by the Bureau on
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-112A1.txt
      • machine, computer, or other device to send 40 unsolicited advertisements to the 28 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Laser Technologies is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $252,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Laser Technologies is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $252,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-128A1.txt
      • should be reduced or cancelled, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $37,000 for Y Pay More's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Y Pay More IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $37,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). with any questions regarding payment procedures.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-129A1.txt
      • apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). ORDERING CLAUSES , STi Telecom Inc. (formerly Epana Networks, Inc.) is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, STi Telecom Inc. (formerly Epana Networks, Inc.) SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. with any questions regarding payment procedures. for further instructions on
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-12A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-12A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-12A1.txt
      • test, for failure to relay the national test;'' The Commission ``should include comments in its ruling that the national test report will not be used as enforcement data, except for failure to report, and repeated or intentional violations.''). SBE Comments at 3. Sage Comments at 9. Bell Comments at 1. See also Abbott Comments at 11-12. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), Note (``...The Commission and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as permitted by the statute....''). Given the important public policy goals discussed above, in exercising our discretion, we will consider potential violations that may be disclosed
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-130A1.txt
      • was a regional toll number), but would not reduce the available minutes on the card. Joint Advertising Statement, 15 FCC Rcd at 8662. See, e.g., ``The Card'' poster with rates valid until January 30, 2011, submitted with Supplemental Response. See id. See supra � 6. See NOS, 16 FCC Rcd at 8138. . . In 2008, the Commission amended section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. � 2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-131A1.txt
      • Tel, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). ORDERING CLAUSES , Lyca Tel, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Lyca Tel, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. with any questions regarding payment procedures. for further instructions on FCC filing addresses. The
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-132A1.txt
      • Touch-Tel USA, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). ORDERING CLAUSES , Touch-Tel USA, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Touch-Tel USA, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. with any questions regarding payment procedures. for further instructions on FCC filing addresses. The
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.txt
      • Part 14 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: The authority citation for Part 1 reads as follows: AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 160, 201, 225, 303, 617 and 618. The Federal Communications Commission amends � 1.80 by redesignating paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) as paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) and by adding new paragraph(b)(3) and revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: � 1.80 Forfeiture Proceedings * * * * * (b) * * * (3) If the violator is a manufacturer or service provider subject to the requirements of Section 255, 716 or
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-155A1.txt
      • see VRS Practices R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 5584, para. 84 and n.228. 47 C.F.R. � 64.606(e) provides authority for the Commission to suspend or revoke the certification of a VRS provider if, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Commission determines that such certification is no longer warranted. In addition, section 503 of the Communications Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules authorizes the Commission to impose monetary forfeitures for failure to comply with the rules or Commission orders. 47 U.S.C. � 503, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. See � 9, supra (citing 47 C.F.R. � 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii)). See � 12, supra. VRS Practices R&O and Certification FNPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 5574, para. 57. Id. at para. 58. Id.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
      • working on behalf of the beneficiaries, available to the Commission's Office of Managing Director, Wireless Bureau, Wireline Bureau, and Office of Inspector General, the USF Administrator, and their auditors. Id. Id. at 14,744, para. 100. See 47 C.F.R. � 54.202(e) (2007). Cf. the five-year limitation on imposition of forfeitures for violations of section 220(d) of the Act. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(2). . ; 47 C.F.R. � 54.320(b) (``All eligible telecommunications carriers shall retain all records required to demonstrate to auditors that the support received was consistent with the universal service high-cost program rules. This documentation must be maintained for at least ten years from the receipt of funding.''). Sprint Mobility Fund NPRM Comments at 10. T-Mobile Mobility Fund NPRM Comments at
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-163A1.txt
      • We further conclude that Travel Club Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,960,000 for its apparent violations of section 227(b)(1) of the Act and section 64.1200(a) of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Travel Club Marketing Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,960,000 for willful and repeated violations of sections 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), and sections 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) and 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-178A1.txt
      • Simple Network, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). ORDERING CLAUSES , Simple Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Simple Network, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. with any questions regarding payment procedures. for further instructions on FCC filing addresses. The
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-179A1.txt
      • rulemaking is required only if an agency adopt[s] a new position inconsistent with any of the [agency's] existing regulations'' (citations omitted). See Application for Review at 8 (citing U.S. v. Daniels, 418 F. Supp. 1074 (D.S.D. 1976) (``Daniels'')). See Daniels, 418 F. Supp. at 1081. See id. See 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See 47 U.S.C. � 504(a); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(5). See U.S. v. Saga Communications of New England, LLC, Civ. No. 10-12407 (E.D. MI). See U.S. v. Saga Communications of New England, LLC, Civ. No. 10-12407 (E.D. MI), Order to Stay (July 15, 2010). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.115. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-179 Federal Communications
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-180A1.txt
      • enforcement action. Such action could take the form of higher monetary forfeitures, possible disqualification of the Companies' principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission, and/or possible revocation of the Companies' authority to operate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Kajeet, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of four hundred sixty thousand, one hundred eighty-six dollars ($460,186) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-182A1.txt
      • all cases, and do not need the protection of a safe harbor. NCTA Comments at 18. If an entity can demonstrate that a pattern or trend of complaints relates to an analog transmission, it need take no further action under these rules. See supra para. 3. 47 U.S.C. � 503. See also 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(2) (stating that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty). CALM Act at � 2(c). See infra paras. 28-29, note 140; NPRM at para. 16. Appendix A, Final Rules (47 C.F.R. � 73.682(e)(2), � 76.607(a)(2)). A station or MVPD can install,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-33A1.txt
      • Village of Green Bay, Wisconsin (call sign WQJZ318); and SAL Spectrum, LLC, for serving the Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (call signs WQJQ808, WQJQ809, and WQJQ810). 47 U.S.C. � 224. A ninth dispute was settled after December 2009, and the others remain pending. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(E); see The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,101, para. 27 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Policy Statement); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), Note to (b)(4). Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996); see Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,109, paras 51-52. 47 C.F.R. � 257(c)(2). (...continued from previous
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.txt
      • 255, 716, and 718 are liable for forfeitures of up to $100,000 per violation or each day of a continuing violation, with the maximum amount for a continuing violation set at $1 million. We intend to use these statutorily directed remedies and sanctions as well as other remedies and sanctions authorized in the Act. We propose a change to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules in Appendix B infra to reflect the modifications of section 718(c) to the Act. We seek comment on whether there are additional remedies that the Commission should consider when a violation is determined to have occurred. The Senate and House Reports make clear that we should not consider remedies that require retrofitting of equipment, and accordingly,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-41A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-41A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-41A1.txt
      • forfeitures are in addition to penalties provided for elsewhere in the Communications Act. Thus the Truth in Caller ID Act establishes the maximum amount of additional forfeiture the Commission can assess for a violation of the Act, but it does not specify how the Commission should determine the forfeiture amount in any particular situation. Therefore, we propose to amend section 1.80(b) of our rules to include a provision specifying the maximum amount of the additional fines that can be assessed for violations of the Truth in Caller ID Act. We also propose to employ the balancing factors we typically use to inform the amount of a forfeiture, which are set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act and section 1.80(b)(4)
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-42A1.txt
      • of NANP invoices because the invoices were mailed to the wrong address and ADMA never received them. Third, ADMA argues that portions of the forfeiture are outside the applicable statute of limitations. Each of these arguments is addressed in detail below. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b)(1) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-48A1.txt
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,607,500 for Mexico Marketing's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Mexico Marketing, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,607,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200 (a)(3), and the related orders as
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-49A1.txt
      • $72,000 for Travelcomm's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. Thus, a total forfeiture of $72,000 is imposed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. , 227(b)(1)(C), and sections 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above. with any questions regarding payment procedures. 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of the Forfeiture Order shall be sent by First Class mail and certified mail return
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.txt
      • attachers by 30 days to 178 days total.''); PCIA Mar. 15 Ex Parte at 1 (``Make ready for wireless pole top attachments must not exceed the Commission's proposed make ready timeline, plus an additional 30 days.''). . (discussing attachments above the communications space). CTIA Mar. 15 Ex Parte at 6-7. See App. A at section 1.1410(a)-(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. See, e.g., Oncor Comments at 33 (stating that the wireless attachments on its poles ``vary greatly in the type of equipment used'' and that this equipment ``differs in power outlet, dimension, height, weight, antenna size, power supply, photocell, etc.''); Florida IOUs Comments at 28 (``Unlike wireline attachments - which are fairly consistent from an engineering perspective - wireless antennae vary
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-58A1.txt
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 17 unsolicited advertisements to the 17 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-61A1.txt
      • 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules by delivering 43 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the 33 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Security First of Alabama, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $342,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Security First of Alabama, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $342,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(B), and section 64.1200(a)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-72A1.txt
      • conclusively demonstrates that it completed construction prior to the expiration of the construction period, notwithstanding the tardy filing of the license to cover application. We note that the staff may also issue Notices of Apparent Liability for ``failure to file a required form'' as authorized by Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for such violations of covering license application filing deadlines or take other enforcement action. The Bureau action admonishing CCBL for its two-day tardiness in filing the License Application recognizes the ``strict completion'' policy which underlies Section 73.3598(e) and we uphold this sanction on this basis. 12. Automatic Downgrade. Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Rules does
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-76A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-76A1.txt
      • the April 1 filing date for the filing entities' Form 499 information. This should assist the carrier's compliance in making both filings. NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 6477-78, �� 46-47, 49. Failure to file the required data on time is a violation of Commission rules and could result in fines and forfeitures. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. Section 43.61(a)(2) states that any revisions should be filed by October 31. 47 C.F.R. � 43.61(a)(2). NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 6484, � 65. Verizon Comments at 11. SES Americom/PanAmSat Comments at 3. . NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 6474-75, �� 36-37; Appendix C, id. at 6509, � 11. Id. at 6474, � 36. Id. The ``Summary Report'' was schedule
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-76A1_Rcd.pdf
      • We direct the International Bureau to revise the draft Filing Manual and issue a new Filing Manual based on the revised reporting requirements that we adopt in this proceeding, and the comments 130Failure to file the required data on time is a violation of Commission rules and could result in fines and forfeitures. See47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. 131Section 43.61(a)(2) states that any revisions should be filed by October 31. 47 C.F.R. � 43.61(a)(2). 132NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 6484, � 65. 133Verizon Comments at 11. 134SES Americom/PanAmSat Comments at 3. 7297 Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-76 filed in response to the proposed Filing Manual. In the meantime, filing entitiesshould continue to file their annual traffic and revenue
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-84A1.txt
      • note that, if we require stations/MVPDs to retain in their public file copies of loud commercial complaints which they receive directly from consumers, our trends analysis may include consideration of consumer complaints filed directly with the station/MVPD. 47 U.S.C. � 503. See, e.g., Senate Committee Report to S. 2847 at 4. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(2) (stating that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. See 47 U.S.C. � 621(b)(2) (codifying CALM Act � 2(b)(2)). See Senate Committee Report to S. 2847 at 4. The legislative history, in particular, states that
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-85A1.txt
      • or other device to send 51 unsolicited advertisements to the 48 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $315,500. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $315,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-88A1.txt
      • that Norristown Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,500,000. Ordering Clauses , that Norristown Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,500,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Norristown Telephone, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. with any questions regarding payment procedures. for further instructions on FCC filing addresses. The
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-89A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-89A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-89A1.txt
      • determined that Main Street Telephone Company apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Main Street Telephone Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,200,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Main Street Telephone Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,200,000, for willful or repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-90A1.txt
      • IV. CONCLUSION We have determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-91A1.txt
      • services. CONCLUSION We have determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-95A1.txt
      • computer, or other device to send 31 unsolicited advertisements to the 30 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $295,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 193, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $295,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-11A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-11A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-11A1.txt
      • Lifeline subscribers could be ineligible). 47 C.F.R. � 54.707. See 47 U.S.C. � 254(b); see also FCC Enforcement Advisory: Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Offering Lifeline Service Are Reminded of Their Obligation to Confirm Consumers' Eligibility and to Avoid Providing Duplicative Service, Enforcement Advisory, DA 11-1971 (Enforc. Bur. Dec. 5, 2011) (Lifeline Enforcement Advisory). . 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). We note that these penalties are periodically adjusted for inflation. See 47 U.S.C. � 214; 47 C.F.R. � 63.01(a) (granting domestic section 214 authority generally); Implementation of Section 402(b)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 11364, 11373-74, paras. 15-16 (1999) (stating that a carrier's blanket section 214 authority can be revoked ``when warranted in
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-16A1.txt
      • evidence, that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Radio License
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-23A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-23A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-23A1.txt
      • in Appendix A. We further find that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $432,000 for apparent violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $432,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-24A1.txt
      • or other device to send 97 unsolicited advertisements to the 79 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that National Employee Benefits Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $603,000. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that National Employee Benefits Group is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $603,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT,
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-2A1.txt
      • to pay. We therefore impose a total forfeiture of $64,000 for Five Star's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Five Star Advertising Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $64,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(c), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). with any questions regarding payment
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-38A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-38A1.txt
      • of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Starfone's operating authority, including disqualification of Starfone's principals from the provision of any interstate or international common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that RB Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $408,668 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-39A1.txt
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests, however, that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any omission
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-3A1.txt
      • file was missing a total of fifteen issues/programs lists. Lazer subsequently sought Commission review of the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. DISCUSSION In this Order on Review, we deny Lazer's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Pursuant to Section 503(b)(5)(E) of the Act, the Bureau took into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Lazer has failed to
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-56A1.txt
      • whether the conduct leading to the violation was negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, or willful, and depending on whether the violation was a first or subsequent offence.'' We note that these monetary penalties, to the extent that the violator is a non-regulatee, exceed the existing statutory base and maximum fines for non-regulatees under section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act and section 1.80 of our rules. Because these monetary penalties are amounts prescribed by statute, the Commission does not have discretion to amend the base forfeiture amounts. Therefore, we propose to amend section 1.80 of the Commission's rules governing forfeiture proceedings and forfeiture amounts to incorporate these new enforcement provisions specifically for the purposes of implementing section 6507 of the Tax Relief Act.
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-62A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-62A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-62A1.txt
      • of Telseven's principals, including Mr. Hines, from providing any interstate common carrier service without the prior consent of the Commission, and/or revocation of Telseven's and Mr. Hines's authority to operate any business that is subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under the Act. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) calendar days
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-9A1.txt
      • files or public sources. When the Commission requests additional information, parties to which such requests are addressed must provide the requested information in the manner and within the time period the Commission specifies. Sanctions or Remedies. We decline to create sanctions or remedies for IP closed captioning enforcement proceedings that deviate from the Commission's flexible, case-by-case approach governed by Section 1.80 of our rules. We do not find warranted the proposal of Consumer Groups that the Commission assess a new violation for each complaint, with a minimum forfeiture level of $10,000 per violation. The record does not support either the $10,000 minimum forfeiture level proposed by the Consumer Groups or establishing a base forfeiture level for IP closed captioning complaints at
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
      • Id. 373 The Commission, for example, has authority under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, to impose forfeiture penalties and, if such a situation was before it properly, would consider imposing penalties on any incumbent LEC that fails to comply with the line sharing rules articulated in this order. Pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act (47 U.S.C 503(b)(2)(B)) and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R 1.80), the amount of the forfeiture would not exceed $110,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation up to a total of $1,100,000. We would be prepared to take action each time an incumbent LEC fails to comply with its section 251(c)(3) unbundling obligations, even if we have already taken action
    • http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-401A1.pdf
      • Therefore, these claims are not properly before us, and we need not address them. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.721(a); see also GE Capital Communications Services v. AT&T, 13 FCC Rcd at 13,149, para. 24 (declining to resolve issues raised for the first time in the complainant's brief). See Consumer.Net Brief at 14. 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22,568, 22,581, at para. 29 (1998). While the violations at issue here standing alone do not fall within the one-year statute of limitations period established in section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(B), the Commission is concerned with AT&T's failure to comply fully with the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98331.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98331.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98331.wp
      • Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Pub L. No. 104-134, � 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), requires that civil monetary penalties assessed by the federal government be adjusted for inflation based on the formula outlined in the DCIA. Thus, the statutory maxima pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) increased from $100,000 and $1,000,000 to $110,000 and $1,100,000 respectively. Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997). 3 2. As described in more detail below, the consumer complaints that support this NAL paint a disturbing picture of LDDI's apparent disregard for following the requirements of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules and orders. The facts in the complaints appear to establish a repeated pattern of conduct by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99224.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99224.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99224.txt
      • the preferred carriers of the fourteen consumers identified above, on the dates and in the manner described herein. We have further determined that Coleman Enterprises d/b/a Local Long Distance is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of $1,120,000. 40. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Coleman Enterprises, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,120,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99225.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99225.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99225.wp
      • Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Pub L. No. 104-134, � 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), requires that civil monetary penalties assessed by the federal government be adjusted for inflation based on the formula outlined in the DCIA. Thus, the statutory maxima pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) increased from $100,000 and $1,000,000 to $110,000 and $1,100,000 respectively. Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997). 11 Pertinent information concerning all 18 complaints and Vista's responses thereto is set forth in the Appendix to this Order. The record also includes supporting statements for each of these complaints. 3 below, was accompanied by Vista's apparently intentional, egregious, and repeated misconduct. In addition, we find that Vista is apparently
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
      • that at least 350 complaints against certain of the Fletcher Companies are within the Commission's statute of limitations, including at least 240 slamming complaints against LDSI and at least 110 slamming complaints against PCI. 50 We note that the Commission recently adopted a policy statement and guidelines regarding unauthorized PIC changes. See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, CI Docket No. 95-6, at 18 (rel. July 28, 1997). Although we do not rely on these guidelines, because they were not in place at the time of the complaints filed against the Fletcher Companies', we note that these guidelines recommend an assessment of forfeitures in the amount of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
      • 65. Id. The Commission, for example, has authority under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, to impose forfeiture penalties and, if such a situation was before it properly, would consider imposing penalties on any incumbent LEC that fails to comply with the line sharing rules articulated in this order. Pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act (47 U.S.C 503(b)(2)(B)) and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R 1.80), the amount of the forfeiture would not exceed $110,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation up to a total of $1,100,000. We would be prepared to take action each time an incumbent LEC fails to comply with its section 251(c)(3) unbundling obligations, even if we have already taken action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99391.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99391.txt
      • or other device to send 19 unsolicited advertisements to the eight consumers identified above. We have further determined that Get-Aways is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $4,500 for each such violation resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $85,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $85,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.txt
      • of Intent to Revoke Interconnection Authority. Before revoking interconnection authority under the provisions of this section, the Commission, or the Common Carrier Bureau under delegated authority, will issue a written Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority, or a Joint Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority pursuant to ��1.80 and 1.89 of this chapter. (c) Delivery. The Notice will be sent via certified mail to the responsible party for the terminal equipment at issue at the address provided to the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments. (d) Reauthorization. A product that has had its approval revoked may not be authorized for connection to the public switched telephone network for a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.txt
      • provisioning. See PR-4-01 (Provisioning of Special Services - Missed Appointments - Total IOF). Specifically, the competitive LEC missed appointment rates for February through June 2001 were 14.29 percent, 15.79 percent, 9.38 percent, 21.05 percent, and 3.57 percent respectively. Verizon's performance for its own retail special services for the same period was 4.98 percent, 1.24 percent, 1.09 percent, 2.39 percent, and 1.80 percent respectively. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275. In Pennsylvania, the retail analogue for this measure historically has been all retail ``special services,'' which predominantly includes relatively simple voice-grade services, rather than the more complex services that CLECs order. Id. at paras. 275-276. The revised retail analogue uses provisioning of retail DS-3s instead of retail special services because the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.txt
      • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01308.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01308.txt
      • application. We have determined that the evidence, although deeply troubling, does not support a finding that SBC apparently engaged in making intentional misrepresentations in violation of section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules in connection with the three reply affidavits.50 With that said, we do conclude that SBC was negligent in collecting the 47 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a). 48 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f). 49 See, e.g. Tuscola Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 76 FCC 2d 367, 371 (1980) (applying preponderance of the evidence standard in reviewing Bureau level forfeiture order). Cf. 47 U.S.C. � 312(d) (assigning burden of proof in hearings to Commission). 50 Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1997/fcc97245.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1997/fcc97245.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1997/fcc97245.wp
      • 47FCCNewsReleaseNo.7033,March6,1997. 48CensusforCommunications'establishmentsareperformedeveryfiveyearsendingwitha"2"or"7".See EconomicsandStatisticsAdministration,BureauofCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,supranote7,atIII. 49Theamountof$10millionwasusedtoestimatethenumberofsmallbusinessestablishmentsbecausethe relevantCensuscategoriesstoppedat$9,999,999andbeganat$10,000,000.Nocategoryfor$10.5millionexisted. Thus,thenumberisasaccurateasitispossibletocalculatewiththeavailableinformation. 50Weusethe77percentfigureofTVstationsoperatingatlessthan$10millionfor1992andapplyittothe 1997totalof1551TVstationstoarriveat1,194stationscategorizedassmallbusinesses. 51 MinorityCommercialBroadcastOwnershipintheUnitedStates,U.S.Dep'tofCommerce,National TelecommunicationsandInformationAdministration,TheMinorityTelecommunicationsDevelopmentProgram ("MTDP")(April1996).MTDPconsidersminorityownershipasownershipofmorethan50%ofabroadcast corporation'sstock,votingcontrolinabroadcastpartnership,orownershipofabroadcastingpropertyasan individualproprietor.Id.TheminoritygroupsincludedinthisreportareBlack,Hispanic,Asian,andNative American. 52 SeeCommentsofAmericanWomeninRadioandTelevision,Inc.inMMDocketNo.94-149andMM DocketNo.91-140,at4n.4(filedMay17,1995),citing1987EconomicCensuses,Women-OwnedBusiness,WB87- 1,U.S.Dep'tofCommerce,BureauoftheCensus,August1990(basedon1987Census).Afterthe1987Census report,theCensusBureaudidnotprovidedatabyparticularcommunicationsservices(four-digitStandardIndustrial Classification(SIC)Code),butratherbythegeneraltwo-digitSICCodeforcommunications(#48).Consequently, since1987,theU.S.CensusBureauhasnotupdateddataonownershipofbroadcastfacilitiesbywomen,nordoes 46 Therearecurrently4,977TVtranslatorstationsand1,952LPTVstationswhichwouldbe affectedbytheallocationpolicyandotherpoliciesinthisproceeding.53TheCommissiondoes notcollectfinancialinformationofanybroadcastfacilityandtheDepartmentofCommercedoes notcollectfinancialinformationonthesebroadcastfacilities.Wewillassumeforpresent purposes,however,thatmostofthesebroadcastfacilities,includingLPTVstations,couldbe classifiedassmallbusinesses.Asindicatedearlier,approximately77percentoftelevision stationsaredesignatedunderthisanalysisaspotentiallysmallbusiness.Giventhis,LPTVand TVtranslatorstationswouldnotlikelyhaverevenuesthatexceedtheSBAmaximumtobe designatedassmallbusinesses. 4.AlternativeClassificationofSmallTelevisionStations Analternativewaytoclassifysmalltelevisionstationsisbythenumberofemployees.The Commissioncurrentlyappliesastandardbasedonthenumberofemployeesinadministeringits EqualEmploymentOpportunity("EEO")ruleforbroadcasting.54Thus,radioortelevision stationswithfewerthanfivefull-timeemployeesareexemptedfromcertainEEOreportingand recordkeepingrequirements.55Weestimatethatthetotalnumberofcommercialtelevision stationswith4orfeweremployeesis132andthatthetotalnumberofnoncommercial educationaltelevisionstationswith4orfeweremployeesis136.56 Wehaveconcludedthatthe746-806MHzbandcanberecoveredimmediately,andthatitis inthepublicinteresttoreallocatethisspectrumtousesinadditiontoTVbroadcasting.We theFCCcollectsuchdata.However,wesoughtcommentonwhethertheAnnualOwnershipReportForm323 shouldbeamendedtoincludeinformationonthegenderandraceofbroadcastlicenseowners.PoliciesandRules RegardingMinorityandFemaleOwnershipofMassMediaFacilities,NoticeofProposedRuleMaking,10FCCRcd 2788,2797(1995). 53FCCNewsReleaseNo.7033,March6,1997. 54TheCommission'sdefinitionofasmallbroadcaststationforpurposesofapplyingitsEEOrulewasadopted priortotherequirementofapprovalbytheSmallBusinessAdministrationpursuanttoSection3(a)oftheSmall BusinessAct,15U.S.C.�632(a),asamendedbySection222oftheSmallBusinessCreditandBusinessOpportunity EnhancementActof1992,Pub.L.No.102-366,�222(b)(1),106Stat.999(1992),asfurtheramendedbytheSmall BusinessAdministrationReauthorizationandAmendmentsActof1994,Pub.L.No.103-403,�301,108Stat.4187 (1994).However,thisdefinitionwasadoptedafterpublicnoticeandanopportunityforcomment.SeeReportand OrderinDocketNo.18244,23FCC2d430(1970). 55See,e.g.,47C.F.R.�73.3612(RequirementtofileannualemploymentreportsonForm395-Bappliesto licenseeswithfiveormorefull-timeemployees);FirstReportandOrderinDocketNo.21474(IntheMatterof AmendmentofBroadcastEqualEmploymentOpportunityRulesandFCCForm395),70FCC2d1466(1979).The CommissioniscurrentlyconsideringhowtodecreasetheadministrativeburdensimposedbytheEEOruleonsmall stationswhilemaintainingtheeffectivenessofourbroadcastEEOenforcement.OrderandNoticeofProposedRule MakinginMMDocketNo.96-16(IntheMatterofStreamliningBroadcastEEORuleandPolicies,Vacatingthe EEOForfeiturePolicyStatementandAmendingSection1.80oftheCommission'sRulestoIncludeEEOForfeiture Guidelines),11FCCRcd5154(1996).Oneoptionunderconsiderationiswhethertodefineasmallstationfor purposesofaffordingsuchreliefasonewithtenorfewerfull-timeemployees.Id.at�21. 56Webasethisestimateonacompilationof1995BroadcastStationAnnualEmploymentReports(FCCForm 395-B),performedbystaffoftheEqualOpportunityEmploymentBranch,MassMediaBureau,FCC. 47 believethatsuchareallocationispossiblewhilecontinuingtoprotectTV.Thereare95full powerTVstations,eitheroperatingorwithapprovedconstructionpermits,inChannel60-69. Therearealsonineproposedstations,andapproximately15stationswillbeaddedduringthe DTVtransitionperiod,foratotalofapproximately119nationwide. Therearealso approximately1,366LPTVstationsandTVtranslatorstationsintheband,operatingona secondarybasistofullpowerTVstations.Weproposetoimmediatelyreallocatethe746-806 MHzbandinordertomaximizethepublicbenefitavailablefromitsuse. TheRFAalsoincludessmallgovernmentalentitiesasapartoftheregulatoryflexibility analysis.57Thedefinitionofasmallgovernmentalentityisonewithapopulationoffewerthan 50,000.58Thereareapproximately85,006governmentalentitiesinthenation.59Thisnumber includessuchentitiesasstates,counties,cities,utilitydistrictsandschooldistricts.Thereare nofiguresavailableonwhatportionofthisnumberhavepopulationsoffewerthan50,000. However,thisnumberincludes38,978counties,citiesandtowns,andofthose,37,566,or96 percent,havepopulationsoffewerthan50,000.60TheCensusBureauestimatesthatthisratio isapproximatelyaccurateforallgovernmentalentities.Thus,oftheapproximately85,006 governmentalentities,weestimatethat96percent,or81,600,aresmallentitiesthatmaybe affectedbyourrules. D. DescriptionofProjectedReporting,RecordkeepingandOtherCompliance Requirements. None. E.SignificantAlternativestoProposedRuleswhichMinimizeSignificantEconomicImpact onSmallEntitiesandAccomplishStatedObjectives. WedonotproposetoprovideLPTVandTVtranslatorstationswiththesameprotection affordedtofull-powerTVstations.Becauseofthelargenumberofsuchstations,protecting themwouldsignificantlydiminishtheutilityofthe746-806MHzbandtobothpublicsafetyand commercialusers.Also,LPTVandTVtranslatorstationsaresecondaryinthisband,andwe haveproposedtomakepublicsafetyandcommercialservicesprimaryintheband.Weremain concerned,however,fortheinterestsofLPTVandTVtranslatorstationsbecausetheyarea valuablepartoftheAmericantelecommunicationsstructureandeconomy.Forthisreason,we seekmeasureswhichwillallowasmanyLPTVandTVtranslatorstationsaspossibletoremain inoperation.Ataminimum,weproposetocontinuethesecondarystatusofthesestations,so thattheywillnotberequiredtochangeorceasetheiroperationsuntiltheyactuallyinterferewith oneofthenewly-allocatedservices.Wealsorequestcommentonanumberofmeasureswhich mayalleviatetheimpactofreallocationofthe746-806MHzbandonLPTVandTVtranslator 575U.S.C.�601(5). 58Id. 591992CensusofGovernments,U.S.BureauoftheCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce. 60Id. 48 stations.Werequestcommentontheseoptions,withemphasisonhowwecanensurefairness toalllicensees,andhowwecanbestbalancetheinterestsofcurrentandfuturelicenseestothe benefitofthepublic. F.FederalRulesthatMayDuplicate,Overlap,orConflictwiththeProposedRules. None. 49
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.wp
      • concern"undertheSmallBusinessAct,15U.S.C.�632.Asmallbusinessconcernisone which:(1)isindependentlyownedandoperated;(2)isnotdominantinitsfieldofoperation; and(3)satisfiesanyadditionalcriteriaestablishedbytheSmallBusinessAdministration ("SBA").AccordingtotheSBA'sregulations,entitiesengagedintelevisionbroadcasting StandardIndustrialClassification("SIC")Code4833--TelevisionBroadcastingStations,may haveamaximumof$10.5millioninannualreceiptsinordertoqualifyasasmallbusiness concern.Thisstandardalsoappliesindeterminingwhetheranentityisasmallbusinessfor purposesoftheRFA. Pursuantto5U.S.C.�601(3),thestatutorydefinitionofasmallbusinessapplies "unlessanagencyafterconsultationwiththeOfficeofAdvocacyoftheSBAandafter opportunityforpubliccomment,establishesoneormoredefinitionsofsuchtermwhichare appropriatetotheactivitiesoftheagencyandpublishessuchdefinition(s)intheFederal Register."Whilewetentativelybelievethattheforegoingdefinitionof"smallbusiness" greatlyoverstatesthenumberoftelevisionbroadcaststationsthataresmallbusinessesandis notsuitableforpurposesofdeterminingtheimpactofthenewrulesonsmalltelevision 9Id.atpara.11. 10Id.atparas.80,143. 11FireweedCommunicationsCorporation,"Inre:AllotmentforHomer,Alaska,"filedNov.22,1996(filed inMMDocketNo.87-268). 12SixthReportandOrderat,e.g.,paras.11,34,76,112,142,144;seealsoFifthReportandOrderinthis proceedingatparas.76-91.(TheFifthReportandOrderhasbeenadoptedconcurrentlywiththepresentSixth ReportandOrder.) D-3 stations,wedidnotproposeanalternativedefinitionintheIRFA.13Accordingly,for purposesofthisSixthReportandOrder,weutilizetheSBA'sdefinitionindeterminingthe numberofsmallbusinessestowhichtherulesapply,butwereservetherighttoadoptamore suitabledefinitionof"smallbusiness"asappliedtotelevisionbroadcaststationsandto considerfurthertheissueofthenumberofsmallentitiesthataretelevisionbroadcastersin thefuture.Further,inthisFRFA,wewillidentifythedifferentclassesofsmalltelevision stationsthatmaybeimpactedbytherulesandpoliciesadoptedinthisSixthReportand Order. 2.IssuesinApplyingtheDefinitionofa"SmallBusiness" Asdiscussedbelow,wecouldnotpreciselyapplytheforegoingdefinitionof"small business"indevelopingourestimatesofthenumberofsmallentitiestowhichtheruleswill apply.Ourestimatesreflectourbestjudgmentsbasedonthedataavailabletous. Anelementofthedefinitionof"smallbusiness"isthattheentitynotbedominantinits fieldofoperation.Wewereunableatthistimetodefineorquantifythecriteriathatwould establishwhetheraspecifictelevisionstationisdominantinitsfieldofoperation. Accordingly,thefollowingestimatesofsmallbusinessestowhichthenewruleswillapplydo notexcludeanytelevisionstationfromthedefinitionofasmallbusinessonthisbasisandare thereforeoverinclusivetothatextent.Anadditionalelementofthedefinitionof"small business"isthattheentitymustbeindependentlyownedandoperated.Asdiscussedfurther below,wecouldnotfullyapplythiscriterion,andourestimatesofsmallbusinessestowhich therulesmayapplymaybeoverinclusivetothisextent.TheSBA'sgeneralsizestandards aredevelopedtakingintoaccountthesetwostatutorycriteria.Thisdoesnotprecludeusfrom takingthesefactorsintoaccountinmakingourestimatesofthenumbersofsmallentities. Withrespecttoapplyingtherevenuecap,theSBAhasdefined"annualreceipts" specificallyin13C.F.R�121.104,anditscalculationsincludeanaveragingprocess.Wedo notcurrentlyrequiresubmissionoffinancialdatafromlicenseesthatwecouldusein applyingtheSBA'sdefinitionofasmallbusiness.Thus,forpurposesofestimatingthe numberofsmallentitiestowhichtherulesapply,wearelimitedtoconsideringtherevenue datathatarepubliclyavailable,andtherevenuedataonwhichwerelymaynotcorrespond 13Wehavependingproceedingsseekingcommentonthedefinitionofanddatarelatingtosmallbusinesses. InourNoticeofInquiryinGNDocketNo.96-113(IntheMatterofSection257ProceedingtoIdentifyand EliminateMarketEntryBarriersforSmallBusinesses),FCC96-216,releasedMay21,1996,werequested commenterstoprovideprofiledataaboutsmalltelecommunicationsbusinessesinparticularservices,including television,andthemarketentrybarrierstheyencounter,andwealsosoughtcommentastohowtodefinesmall businessesforpurposesofimplementingSection257oftheTelecommunicationsActof1996,whichrequiresus toidentifymarketentrybarriersandtoprescriberegulationstoeliminatethosebarriers.Additionally,inour OrderandNoticeofProposedRuleMakinginMMDocketNo.96-16(IntheMatterofStreamliningBroadcast EEORuleandPolicies,VacatingtheEEOForfeiturePolicyStatementandAmendingSection1.80ofthe Commission'sRulestoIncludeEEOForfeitureGuidelines),11FCCRcd5154(1996),weinvitedcommentasto whetherreliefshouldbeaffordedtostations:(1)basedonsmallstaffandwhatsizestaffwouldbeconsidered sufficientforrelief,e.g.,10orfewerfull-timeemployees;(2)basedonoperationinasmallmarket;or(3)based onoperationinamarketwithasmallminorityworkforce.Wehavenotconcludedtheforegoingproceedings. D-4 completelywiththeSBAdefinitionofannualreceipts. UnderSBAcriteriafordeterminingannualreceipts,ifaconcernhasacquiredan affiliateorbeenacquiredasanaffiliateduringtheapplicableaveragingperiodfor determiningannualreceipts,theannualreceiptsindeterminingsizestatusincludethereceipts ofbothfirms.13C.F.R.�121.104(d)(1).TheSBAdefinesaffiliationin13C.F.R. �121.103.Inthiscontext,theSBA'sdefinitionofaffiliateisanalogoustoourattribution rules.Generally,undertheSBA'sdefinition,concernsareaffiliatesofeachotherwhenone concerncontrolsorhasthepowertocontroltheother,orathirdpartyorpartiescontrolsor hasthepowertocontrolboth.13C.F.R.�121.103(a)(1).TheSBAconsidersfactorssuch asownership,management,previousrelationshipswithortiestoanotherconcern,and contractualrelationships,indeterminingwhetheraffiliationexists.13C.F.R.�121.103(a)(2). Insteadofmakinganindependentdeterminationofwhethertelevisionstationswereaffiliated basedonSBA'sdefinitions,wereliedonthedatabasesavailabletoustoprovideuswiththat information. 3.TelevisionStationEstimatesBasedonCensusData TheSixthReportandOrderwillaffectfullservicetelevisionstations,TVtranslator facilities,andLPTVstations.TheSmallBusinessAdministrationdefinesatelevision broadcastingstationthathasnomorethan$10.5millioninannualreceiptsasasmall business.14Televisionbroadcastingstationsconsistofestablishmentsprimarilyengagedin broadcastingvisualprogramsbytelevisiontothepublic,exceptcableandotherpaytelevision services.15Includedinthisindustryarecommercial,religious,educational,andother televisionstations.16Alsoincludedareestablishmentsprimarilyengagedintelevision broadcastingandwhichproducetapedtelevisionprogrammaterials.17Separateestablishments primarilyengagedinproducingtapedtelevisionprogrammaterialsareclassifiedunder anotherSICnumber.18 1413C.F.R.�121.201,StandardIndustrialCode(SIC)4833(1996). 15EconomicsandStatisticsAdministration,BureauofCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,1992Census ofTransportation,CommunicationsandUtilities,EstablishmentandFirmSize,SeriesUC92-S-1,AppendixA-9 (1995). 16 Id.SeeExecutiveOfficeofthePresident,OfficeofManagementandBudget,StandardIndustrial ClassificationManual(1987),at283,whichdescribes"TelevisionBroadcastingStations(SICCode4833)as: Establishmentsprimarilyengagedinbroadcastingvisualprogramsbytelevisiontothepublic, exceptcableandotherpaytelevisionservices.Includedinthisindustryarecommercial, religious,educationalandothertelevisionstations.Alsoincludedhereareestablishments primarilyengagedintelevisionbroadcastingandwhichproducetapedtelevisionprogram materials. 17EconomicsandStatisticsAdministration,BureauofCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,supranote7, AppendixA-9. 18Id.;SIC7812(MotionPictureandVideoTapeProduction);SIC7922(TheatricalProducersand MiscellaneousTheatricalServices(producersofliveradioandtelevisionprograms). D-5 Therewere1,509televisionstationsoperatinginthenationin1992.19Thatnumberhas remainedfairlyconstantasindicatedbytheapproximately1,551operatingtelevision broadcastingstationsinthenationasofFebruary28,1997.20For199221thenumberof televisionstationsthatproducedlessthan$10.0millioninrevenuewas1,155establishments, orapproximately77percentofthe1,509establishments.22Thus,theruleswillaffect approximately1,551televisionstations;approximately1,194ofthosestationsareconsidered smallbusinesses.23Theseestimatesmayoverstatethenumberofsmallentitiessincethe revenuefiguresonwhichtheyarebaseddonotincludeoraggregaterevenuesfromnon- televisionaffiliatedcompanies.Werecognizethattherulesmayalsoimpactminorityand womenownedstations,someofwhichmaybesmallentities.In1995,minoritiesownedand controlled37(3.0%)of1,221commercialtelevisionstationsintheUnitedStates.24 AccordingtotheU.S.BureauoftheCensus,in1987womenownedandcontrolled27(1.9%) of1,342commercialandnon-commercialtelevisionstationsintheUnitedStates.25
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.txt
      • radio, or the applicant for authorization of a software defined radio shall submit a copy of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters upon request by the Commission. Failure to comply with such a request within 14 days or such additional time as the Commission may allow may be cause for denial of authorization, forfeiture pursuant to � 1.80 of this chapter, or other administrative sanctions. Section 2.1043 is revised to read as follows: � 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1998/da982400.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1998/da982400.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1998/da982400.wp
      • between its affiliate, Telmex, and U.S. carriers that could explain the significant change in received collect traffic on the U.S.-Mexico route.32 ORDERING CLAUSE 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 214, 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 214, 303(r) and 403, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Telmex/Sprint Communications, L.L.C. (TSC) SHALL SHOW CAUSE within 30 days of the release of this Order why we should not find that it and its affiliate, Tel�fonos de M�xico, S.A. de C.V., have failed to comply with the conditions attached to its Section 214 authorization to provide international switched resale services
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.txt
      • raise an issue as to WQED's continued qualifications, based upon an isolated violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act. While we do not condone violations of our enhanced underwriting requirements by noncommercial stations, an adjudicated violation of Section 399B typically results in the imposition of a fine or admonishment. See, e.g., Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997). Because WQED promptly informed the Commission of its violation, and took immediate remedial steps to ensure that contrasting viewpoints were aired, we will admonish WQED for its violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act, but decline to take other enforcement action against it. We also remind
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/2001/sthfr114.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/2001/sthfr114.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/2001/sthfr114.txt
      • �534(b)(9)(``A cable operator shall provide written notice to a local commercial television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or repositioning that station. No deletion or repositioning of a local commercial television station shall occur during a period in which major television ratings services measure the size of audiences of local television stations.'' See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f). News media Information 202 / 418-0500 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20554 This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974). NEWS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237642A1.html
      • due to the volume of unpainted cabling attached to the face of the structure. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Crown willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 by failing to paint the cabling mounted to the exterior face of the antenna structure. 5.The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,10 which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237650A1.html
      • change in ownership. On January 3, 2003, Entravision filed the required updated ownership information for the structure with the Commission. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Entravision failed to immediately notify the Commission of the change in ownership of the structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237654A1.html
      • EAS equipment. Based on the evidence, we find that Meeker willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational at the time of inspection on November 14, 2002, and for more than two months prior to the inspection date. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,12 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237657A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Sections 11.35, 11.61, and 73.1125 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly operational, failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests and failing to ascertain the cause of and log EAS equipment failures, and failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,23 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to maintain a main studio is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237664A1.html
      • 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Victory Ministries willfully2 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.49, and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower, and failing to have the station's public inspection file available for inspection during regular business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237666A1.html
      • Section 11.35(b) of the Rules.4 Station management was unaware as to when the station had last conducted an EAS test. No station personnel were able to conduct an EAS test. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pearson willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules7 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.8 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237668A1.html
      • structure's height exceeds 200 feet.3 On October 9 and 10, 2002, Best Country did not have their antenna structure in Bogalusa, Louisiana registered with the Commission. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Best Country willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237670A1.html
      • had malfunctioned. In addition, there were no entries in the station's log to indicate any problem or malfunction of the EAS equipment as required by Section 11.35(b) of the Rules.4 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Chatterbox willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules7 sets forth the base amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.8 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237672A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 11.61 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment operational, by failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests, and by failing to ascertain why the required tests were not conducted and failing to log any EAS equipment failures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,16 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237707A1.html
      • Ross willfully4 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, failing to register their antenna structure, and failing to have all required documents in the station's public inspection file available for inspection at any time during regular business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237714A1.html
      • NRVRP willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.50 and 73.49 of the Rules. Specifically, we find NRVRP apparently liable for failing to maintain the operational readiness of its EAS equipment, for failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structures and for failing to maintain effective locked fencing around all of its energized AM antenna towers. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain the operational readiness of its EAS equipment is $8,000; the amount for failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structures is $10,000, and the amount for failing to maintain effective fencing around its energized AM antenna towers is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237716A1.html
      • red top beacon and three of its sidelights dark. The owner had made no report of the light outage to the FAA.2 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Jorge L Estrada willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all required red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237717A1.html
      • height above ground level.2 From at least December 30, 1996, until March 7, 2003, Clamor failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Clamor Broadcasting Network Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (failure to register an antenna structure with the Commission) is three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237727A1.html
      • from the structure, resulting in poor visibility of the structures' obstruction markings. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Cumulus willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint its antenna structures to maintain good visibility in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structures #1052722 and #1052724. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure markings is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237729A1.html
      • the structure exceeded 200 feet in height.2 Therefore, Charter's antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least April 16 through May 8, 2003, Charter failed to register this antenna structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Charter willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237735A1.html
      • 12, 2002, Pamal failed to notify the Commission of a change in ownership of its antenna structure #1054493. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pamal Broadcasting Ltd. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of its antenna structure #1054493. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g. failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237736A1.html
      • ASR, and FCC rules.3 On August 21, 2002, cables attached to the structure obstructed the paint over the entire height of the structure, resulting in poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ashley willfully4 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237746A1.html
      • at least one top mounted red flashing (L-864) obstruction light installed. The agents observed two single small red lights mounted on top of the structure. 8. Based on the evidence, we find that Unocal willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.23 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number and maintain prescribed lighting. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting requirements is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number.8 The Commission
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237754A1.html
      • found unlocked. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find East Texas Broadcasting willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules and willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure and failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around the base of the antenna. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this Notice are: $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) and $7,000 for AM tower fencing. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237755A1.html
      • failed to maintain good visibility of his antenna structure number 1220001 located in Nacogdoches, Texas. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Martin D. Marshall willfully3 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237756A1.html
      • Commission registration, because its height exceeds 200 feet.2 For at least one year up through January 30, 2003, Ramsey failed to register its antenna supporting structure with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Ramsey willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237757A1.html
      • of the tower. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Renaissance Radio willfully7 and repeatedly8 violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment, failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting, and failing to provide an effective locked fence around the base of the radiating antenna tower. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment is $8,000, for failure to comply with prescribed tower obstruction lighting is $10,000, and for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237758A1.html
      • contained no entries of EAS tests, activations or reasons for failures to conduct such tests during this period.3 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Petracom willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operational from at least October 16, 2002, until January 30, 2003. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237759A1.html
      • paint was dark and dull so that the bands were difficult to distinguish at approximately of a mile, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Leon's Radio willfully4 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237768A1.html
      • taking the steps necessary to properly maintain these systems prior to FCC notification.4 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find PCI willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise during the period of November 11-15, 2002, and on December 3, 2002. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000.00. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237770A1.html
      • the structure's paint. As a result of the faded paint and black cabling, the structure exhibited poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find AAT Communications Corporation willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1005728. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237771A1.html
      • 2000 to January 23, 2003, The Helicon Group L.P. failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find The Helicon Group L.P. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission from January 2000 until January, 2003. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237773A1.html
      • and conduct such tests, and no entries showing EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair.2 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that from at least April 26, 2002 to January 30, 2003, Charter willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct the required monthly EAS tests. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required EAS tests (i.e., failure to make require measurements or conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237779A1.html
      • lighting2 and also failed to provide an acceptable method of monitoring the condition of the lights.3 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Barnacle Broadcasting willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on antenna structure 1063961 in Port Royal, South Carolina. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237781A1.html
      • medium intensity obstruction lighting was observed operating on Business Cell's antenna structure #1216842. Business Cell had not notified the FAA of the light outage.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Business Cell willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237782A1.html
      • required Commission registration. From at least September 25, 2001 to October 29, 2002, CB Radio's antenna structure used as part of Station WBEJ(AM) was not registered with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find CB Radio willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237784A1.html
      • As of April 16, 2003, Palmetto had failed to register its antenna structure used as part of station WAIM. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Palmetto willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 11.61(a) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to conduct required EAS tests and by failing to register its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information to register the antenna structure is $3,000, and for failure to conduct EAS tests (i.e., failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237785A1.html
      • 2003, the Wanda Doonan Trust failed to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find the Wanda Doonan Trust willfully3and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237788A1.html
      • staff stated they had received numerous cards and letters during that time period. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Clinton Radio Company willfully9 and repeatedly10 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to make available all required contents of the public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 for non-operational EAS equipment, and $10,000 for violation of public inspection file rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237790A1.html
      • Communications Partners, LP failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Alliance Communications Partners, LP willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237824A1.html
      • to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring regarding EAS monitoring sources, EAS tests, and observation of the antenna structure's lights; Sections 17.4(a) for failure to file required forms or information regarding the registration of the two antenna structures; and Section 17.51(a) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (?Forfeiture Policy Statement?)3, sets the base forfeiture amount at $1,000 for failing to maintain required records, $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring, $3,000 each (two towers) for failure to file required forms or information for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237837A1.html
      • 30, 2002, no obstruction lighting was observed on Crown Castle's antenna structure #1037111. Crown Castle had not notified the FAA of the light outage.2 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Crown Castle willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237839A1.html
      • of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting2 and failed to inspect the structure's lighting system for proper operation.3 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MCC Georgia LLC repeatedly4 and willfully5 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $10,000.6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237842A1.html
      • Signal, Test Script and EOM codes for the months of June 2002 and August 2002, and by failing to log entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of May 5, 2002 to May 18, 2002, and August 4, 2002 to August 24, 2002. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237843A1.html
      • of August 4-10, 2002, September 8-14, 2002, September 15-21, 2002, September 22-28, 2002, and October 13-19, 2002, and log entries of reasons why required monthly and weekly EAS tests were not received for the month of August 2002, and for the weeks of August 4-10, 2002, and October 20-26, 2002. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237844A1.html
      • of August 2002, September 2002, and October 2002, and log entries of reasons why required monthly and weekly EAS tests were not received for the months of August 2002, September 2002, and October 2002, for the week of September 1-7, 2002, and from September 15, 2002 to October 12, 2002. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237845A1.html
      • July 1 to September 7, 2002, and September 15-21, 2002, and by failing to log entries indicating reasons why required monthly EAS tests were not received for the months of July 2002 and August, 2002, and weekly EAS tests were not received from July 1, 2002 to September 14, 2002. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237848A1.html
      • and EOM codes for the weeks of November 10-23, 2002, December 15, 2002-January 4, 2003, and January 12-25, 2003, and failing to log entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of November 10-23, 2002, December 15, 2002-January 4, 2003, and January 12-25, 2003. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237857A1.html
      • and on October 3, 2002 between 7:20 p.m. and 7:45 p.m., Urban Radio of Pennsylvania, LLC., failed to exhibit the red obstruction lighting on the WURP antenna structure. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Urban willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 17.47(a)(1), 17.48(a), and 17.51(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, for failure to file required forms or information at $3,000, and for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237860A1.html
      • 2002 and July 16, 2002, between August 4, 2002 and August 17, 2002, between October 13, 2002 and October 26, 2002, between November 17, 2002 and December 3, 2002. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pentecostal willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237881A1.html
      • explaining why the EAS tests were not received, or any indication that the station's chief operator or other personnel attempted to identify the source of any problem with the EAS equipment. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WEMG willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237882A1.html
      • coordinates of the tower as approximately N 45 27 41, W 98 20 15. No tower registration exists at or near those coordinates that match the physical description of the tower. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Northern willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register the tower. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')6, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237913A1.html
      • to discontinue painting and lighting specifications shown on their authorization. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tennessee Gas willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to properly register their tower, and by failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information, and at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237914A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that NCR willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 17.4(a), 17.4(g), and 17.50 of the rules by failing to properly register the tower, failing to post the ASR number at the base of the antenna, and failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules5 does not establish a base
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237916A1.html
      • as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. At the time of the inspection, WQRK's antenna structure's paint was severely faded and the bands of paint were not distinguishable, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. 6. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. 7. Based on the evidence
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237917A1.html
      • specifies that antenna structures must be cleaned and repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. At the time of the inspection, Taylor's antenna structure was severely faded, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. 6. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. 7. Based on the evidence
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237918A1.html
      • exposed. 6. Section 17.57 requires the owner of a Registered Antenna Structure to immediately notify the Commission of any change in ownership information. At the time of inspection, the tower was registered to a previous owner. 7. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 and repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. 8. Based on the evidence
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237974A1.html
      • of December 2002 and January 2003, by failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from December 2002 to January 2003, and by failing to maintain the required records by verifying that the station has been operating as required, by the chief operator in writing. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and for failure to maintain the required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238353A1.html
      • 11.35(a), 11.52(d), 17.4(a), and 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to determine the cause of failure to transmit receive the required EAS tests or activations and make the appropriate log entries, failing to monitor two EAS sources, failing to register the antenna structure, and failing to maintain the authorized operating power. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at $1,000, failure to make the required measurements or conduct the required monitoring at $2,000, failure to file required forms or information at $3,000 and exceeding
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238567A1.html
      • the antenna tower for station KAOK(AM) was not enclosed within an effective fence or other enclosure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pittman Broadcasting willfully3 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238568A1.html
      • violated Section 17.57 of the Commission's Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of these structures. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Tecnet willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of antenna structures. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238985A1.html
      • ASR, and FCC rules.3 On August 21, 2002, cables attached to the structure obstructed the paint over the entire height of the structure, resulting in poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ashley willfully4 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239072A1.html
      • EOM code from December 2002 to April 2003, failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from December 1, 2002 to May 10, 2003, and failing to log entries of reasons why required monthly EAS tests were not received from December 2002 to April 2003. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239074A1.html
      • intermediate levels of the structure during all phases of construction.6 In addition, Media General failed to immediately notify the FAA of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting.7 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Media General willfully8 and repeatedly9 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit the required obstruction lighting. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239292A1.html
      • Ridge Road and KY-59, approximately 4.2 miles northwest of Olive Hill, Kentucky, and at 3311 Happy Ridge Road, Ashland, Kentucky, were not registered. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FrontierVision has willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failure to register its antenna structures. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')6, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239920A1.html
      • two EAS sources specified in the State EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. On February 7, 2002, and on April 14, 2003, station WROD failed to monitor its assigned EAS sources. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gove- Overgaard repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 11.52(d) of the Rules by failing to monitor assigned EAS sources. 6. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules4 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring (e.g., failure to monitor EAS sources). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242190A1.html
      • Brown Broadcasting has been issued two violation notices for the same violation, yet still failed for the past four years to register the tower. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Brown Broadcasting System, Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)5of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)6 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242441A1.html
      • antenna structure 1217391 in accordance with its registration requirements. In addition, Vector failed to notify the FAA immediately of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting2. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Vector willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all required obstruction lights on structure 1217391. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242442A1.html
      • station license and antenna tower registration. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blountstown willfully3 violated Section 11.35, 73.49 and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operation of the EAS equipment, failing to enclose the base of the antenna system in a fence and failing to make available a complete public file. 8. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules4 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for EAS violations, $7,000 for tower fencing violations and $10,000 for public file violations. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242619A1.html
      • 2003. 6. Section 17.51(a) of the Rules requires red obstruction lighting be exhibited from sunset to sunrise. WLTH failed to exhibit the required lights on its antenna structure from February 14, 2003 to March 12, 2003. 7. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act6 and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules.7 8. Based on the evidence
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242620A1.html
      • or lighting requirements be registered with the Commission. Painting and lighting requirements had been assigned to Comcast's antenna structure, requiring registration with the Commission.4 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Comcast willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')7, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242624A1.html
      • and EOM code for the months of January 2003 and March 2003, and by failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from January 5, 2003 to February 22, 2003, from March 23 to April 5, 2003, and from April 27 to May 31, 2003. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242819A1.html
      • AM broadcast station KBRN. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find PAULINO willfully9 violated Sections 73.1125, 11.35(a), and 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a main studio in the community of license, failing to maintain installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment, and failing to make available a public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000, for failing to have installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment is $8,000, and violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243041A1.html
      • station license lists antenna structure painting and lighting requirements. As of the date of this Notice, Louisa still has not registered the antenna structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Louisa willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17(4)(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amounts at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information (e.g. failure to register the antenna structure). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243042A1.html
      • entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of December 1, 2002 to January 25, 2003, February 23, 2003 to March 8, 2003, March 30, 2003 to April 5, 2003, April 13-19, 2003, April 27, 2003 to May 3, 2003, and May 11-24, 2003. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000 ($2,000 for each of Kimtron's two radio stations), and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000 ($1,000
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243468A1.html
      • of 2003 that the structure would be registered. Yet to date, the antenna structure has not been registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Redwood apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')11 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,12 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244158A1.html
      • exceeded 200 feet in height. Therefore, Eagle Broadcasting's three antenna structures required Commission registration. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Eagle Broadcasting, Inc. repeatedly3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its three antenna structures with the Commission since at least January 1, 2003 until at least December 5, 2003. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)4 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)5 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244159A1.html
      • the structure's lighting.4 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Exosphere Broadcasting, LLC repeatedly5 and willfully6 violated Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of the required antenna structure obstruction marking and by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting and/or markings is $10,000.7 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244895A1.html
      • required information. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WKLC, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), 73.3526(e)(5) and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed and working, by exceeding power limits, and for failure to maintain records in the public file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amounts at $8,000 for failure to comply with the rules relating to the installation and operability of EAS equipment, $4,000 for exceeding power limits and $10,000 for failure to comply with the public
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244897A1.html
      • received for the months of December 2002, January 2003, March 2003, and April 2003, and state reasons why EAS tests were not received, failing to maintain station records of required weekly EAS tests received for the week of January 5-11, 2003, and state reasons why EAS tests were not received. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $4,000 ($1,000 for each of Capital Media's four radio stations, WHAZ, WBAR-FM, WMYY, and WMNV). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244900A1.html
      • main studio location. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Rama willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules for failure to have the EAS transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation, and failure to make available upon request the entire public inspection file during regular business hours. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and for failure to maintain required records in the public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244974A1.html
      • 11, 2003 to August 9, 2003, and August 24-30, 2003, and failing to log required entries of reasons why weekly EAS tests were not transmitted for the weeks of March 9-29, 2003, April 13, 2003 to May 3, 2003, May 11, 2003 to August 9, 2003, and August 24-30, 2003. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244979A1.html
      • signal on its assigned frequency of 1.340 MHz. Station logs contained no entries showing EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair.2 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find WBLB repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have its EAS transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244980A1.html
      • reflected Heart of Citrus, Inc. as the current owner of antenna structure 1027884. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find WGUL willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1027884 and failing to immediately notify the Commission upon any change in ownership information. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting is $10,000. The base amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244982A1.html
      • Big Island Radio repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly and monthly EAS tests, and failing to determine the cause of the failures to receive the required EAS tests and log the reasons why the EAS tests were not received. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring timely retransmission of the monthly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-245206A1.html
      • 2003, October 14, 2003, and until January 20, 2004, AT&T Wireless failed to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on structure 1030401 in accordance with its registration requirements. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find AT&T Wireless willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1030401. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-245208A1.html
      • February 3, 2004, until at least March 12, 2004, FFP failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Florida Food Products, Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register with the Commission its antenna structure located at Eustis, Florida. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, 5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246120A1.html
      • KAWV began operation in August of 2002. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find O'Hana Radio Partners willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operational from August 2002, until July 1, 2003. 1. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),9 and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. Accordingly, the total base forfeiture for failing to have operational EAS equipment for station KAWV is $8,000. 7. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246122A1.html
      • received or to note problems or malfunctions of the EAS equipment. Based on the evidence before us, we find Concord repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required EAS tests. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.12 The requirement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246124A1.html
      • structure would be registered. As of February 3, 2004, the antenna structure had not been registered. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dead Air apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246337A1.html
      • as required by Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find Sunbelt repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required monthly EAS tests. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.10 The requirement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246338A1.html
      • 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find Moon Broadcasting repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly and weekly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required monthly and weekly EAS tests. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.11 The requirement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248150A1.html
      • FCC Form 854 upon any change in structure height or change in ownership information. The tower was registered to NYNEX at the time of the light outage 16. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 17.48, 17.49, 17.51, and 17.57 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (two counts, FAA and FCC), $1000 for failure maintain required records, and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248614A1.html
      • indistinguishable at a distance of one-fourth of a mile from the structure and resulting in poor visibility of the structure's obstruction markings. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Andrews Tower willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint antenna structure number 1058251 to maintain good visibility. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure markings is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249189A1.html
      • WHNC and WCBQ. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find TPN willfully6 and repeatedly7 violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain required EAS equipment and by failing to make available for inspection the complete public inspection file(s), at WHNC and WCBQ. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,8 the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS equipment is $8,000 and the amount for violation of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249273A1.html
      • violation has occurred on more than one day, thus, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ackerley willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure #1040111. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249274A1.html
      • at least ``approximately four years until the present.''19 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Northwest repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to conform to the FAA's dual lighting requirements as set forth in the FAA Notice for antenna structure # 1023331. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000.20 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-250101A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find Konarz willfully8 and repeatedly9 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, operating with excessive power and failing to discontinue operation at sunset, and failing to make available for inspection all of the required materials in the station's public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for operation with excessive power and failure to discontinue operation after sunset is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-250102A1.html
      • May 12 and 13, 2004, WROX(AM)'s antenna structure was not enclosed by an effective locked fence or enclosure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Delta willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to maintain effective fencing around its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which include the nature,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252867A1.html
      • antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lotus repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, 17.48, and 17.49 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1015922. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000.19 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252868A1.html
      • before us, we find that Morongo Basin Broadcasting Corporation repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the station was in operation. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, 12 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252869A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Three D Radio repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the stations were in operation. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 sets the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's Rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be for this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-253039A1.html
      • around November 30, 1998. However, Shadavrus did not notify the Commission of this change in ownership until March 10, 2004. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Shadavrus willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify immediately the Commission upon a change in ownership information for an antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-253692A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Hi-Favor repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring transmission of the weekly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254543A1.html
      • Broadcasting Network Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to have installed the required EAS equipment and for not maintaining the station's studio within its community of license, within the principal community contour or within twenty-five miles from the reference coordinates of the center of its community of license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have installed the required EAS equipment is eight thousand dollars ($8,000) and for main studio violations is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). 8. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255040A1.html
      • monitoring capabilities during the time the stations are in operation. On February 6, 2003, Southern had no EAS equipment installed at station WENA-AM. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Southern willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to have installed equipment capable of monitoring and transmitting the EAS system. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have installed EAS equipment is $8000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255235A1.html
      • pieces of equipment were FCC Certified. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Halifax willfully6 and repeatedly7 violated Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to install and maintain EAS equipment and operating overpower with a non-certified transmitter from an unauthorized location. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,8 the base forfeiture amounts are as follows: failure to install EAS equipment, $8,000; use of unauthorized equipment, $5,000; exceeding power limits, $4,000; and construction or operation at an unauthorized location, $4,000.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255236A1.html
      • day, therefore, it is repeated. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ACS willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in the ownership information for Antenna Structure Registration (``ASR'') numbers #1022129 and #1006025. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255237A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and by failing to notify FAA regarding the on-going light outage on antenna structure 1019797 in Knik, Alaska as required. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. The base amount for failing to file required information is $3000. We find that failing to notify the FAA of an outage constitutes a failure to file required
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255477A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Schikora and the Horner Trust willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure #1005017. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256119A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Source willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna and by failing to maintain the lighting of its antenna structure. We also find, based on the evidence before us, that Source willfully and repeatedly failed to respond to Commission correspondence. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information; ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking; and four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256485A1.html
      • the required monthly and weekly tests. Consequently, Lazer's violation was willful. Lazer's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lazer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 1.9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257048A1.html
      • the Commission.2 On February 27, 2004, WBLT admitted that it had never registered its antenna structure. On March 1, 2004, WBLT obtained registration number 1242296 for its WBLT tower. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find WBLT apparently willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257374A1.html
      • monthly and weekly tests, therefore, Guerrero's violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Guerrero apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000.12 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257559A1.html
      • April 29, 1999 for failure to register its antenna structure, the structure was not registered with the Commission until December 27, 2004. We therefore find that Forsberg apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, as required by Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 9. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258046A1.html
      • structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AMFM Ohio apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1014752. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for antenna structure is $10,000.16 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258186A1.html
      • Antenna Structures #1040052, 1040053, and 1040054 had never been painted or lit. On January 25, 2005, agents confirmed that the antenna structures were not painted or lit. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mega Communications willfully3 violated Section 17.21 of the Rules by failing to comply with antenna structure painting and lighting specifications. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed painting and lighting specifications is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258187A1.html
      • the structures. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vector apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on structures 1204872, 1204873 and 1204874. Moreover, Vector must submit a statement detailing the steps taken to repair structures 1204872, 1204873 and 1204874 within thirty days. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258872A1.html
      • missing. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Twenty-One Sound apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a), and 73.3526(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an operational EAS system, failing to maintain a main studio for Station KNSX(FM), and failing to maintain a public inspection file as required by the Rules. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the listed violations are: $8,000 for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment; $7,000 for a violation of a main studio rule; and $10,000 for failure to maintain a public inspection file consistent with the Rules.16 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260117A1.html
      • consequently, numerous RMTs and RWTs were not received or transmitted. Therefore, Farmworkers' violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Farmworkers Educational Radio Network, Inc., apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KCEC-FM. 1.10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260541A1.html
      • granted. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ms. Salazar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526(e) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000.10 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260650A1.html
      • hazard and more than a year after the structure was required to be registered. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arcom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to register antenna structure #1249670, located in Blue Mountain, St.Croix, USVI. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260730A1.html
      • 2004, Parks did not deny that the issues/programs lists were missing from WEKC's public inspection file on the date of the inspection. We therefore find that Parks apparently willfully and repeatedly failed to maintain the issues/programs list in the public file, as required by Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. 10. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information and is set at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to maintain items in the public inspection file. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260731A1.html
      • hazard and more than a year after the structure was required to be registered. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arcom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to register antenna structure #1249670, located in Blue Mountain, St.Croix, USVI. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261768A1.html
      • Rules by failing to comply with the main studio location requirements. In addition, we direct Southern Media to provide a written description of the steps it has taken to correct these violations within 30 days. We will determine at that time whether additional enforcement action should be taken. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts are: $8,000 for EAS equipment not installed or operational, $10,000 for violation of public file rules, $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, $4,000 for construction and operation at unauthorized location (Broadcast Transmitter), and $4,000 for construction
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262291A1.html
      • the reply to the NOV, BCR stated that the violation had been corrected and the lists were now in the station's public file. Based on this evidence, we find that BCR apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violations of public file rules is $10,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262294A1.html
      • therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nextel apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to light antenna structure #1245078 in accordance with the specifications set forth on the structure's FAA determination and its antenna structure registration. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262295A1.html
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Richard A. & Joann R. Peterson, Joint Tenants, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of KBSZ(AM)'s EAS equipment. 1.12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262407A1.html
      • violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. We also admonish Trap Rock for failing to post an antenna structure registration number at the base of its tower in violation of Section 17.4(g). 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262408A1.html
      • required more than 30 minutes to correct.7 TC employees only notified the FAA of a lighting outage on June 5, 2005. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that TC apparently willfully violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to comply with prescribed lighting requirements. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262937A1.html
      • period of time and that he had notified station management in April, 2005. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Corry Communications Corporation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at WWCB. 11. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount is set at eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,12 which include
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262939A1.html
      • willful. Because the violation continued for more than one day, it was repeated. 15. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WSKQ and WPAT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules")14 by failing to maintain operational Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment. 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000.15 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262940A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Time Warner Cable, Inc., apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to ensure that antenna structure #1240108 was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000.13 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263107A1.html
      • 304 feet and therefore Conneaut was required to register the tower with the Commission. The tower remained unregistered until November 18, 2005. Accordingly, we find that Conneaut apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, as required by Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 7. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263337A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that CRC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49, and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure registration, lighting, monitoring, record keeping, and notification requirements for antenna structure #1019247. 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information, such as an antenna structure registration,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263779A1.html
      • Therefore, KPAL's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KPAL Television Inc., apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of KPAL's EAS equipment. 1.12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263781A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna lighting, monitoring, notification and registration requirements specified for antenna structure #1041257, and for failing to comply with the registration requirements for antenna structure #1041256. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264149A1.html
      • individually register the towers until after the follow-up inspection by FCC agents on March 24, 2005. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Renda apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register individually each of its WJAS antenna structures. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264508A1.html
      • Caballeros' violations occurred on more than one day, therefore, they were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Caballero apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of EAS equipment used by KMMA-CA, KQMM-CA, and KVMM-CA. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to ensure EAS Equipment operational readiness is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266078A1.html
      • apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules, by failing to comply with painting and lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1015656, and for failing to ensure that the structure was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266561A1.html
      • lists. In response to the LOI, Truatt stated that, although the station had a public affairs calendar, he "forgot" to place an issues/programs list in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Truatt apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements is $2,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because WTBQ's public file
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266562A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that T-Mobile West Corporation, apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.23 of the Rules, by failing to comply with lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1041076. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266880A1.html
      • sources. 11. Broadcast House's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcast House apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KNDI. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267302A1.html
      • willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. We also find that Long Pond apparently willfully violation Section 73.3527 by failing to maintain for inspection the complete public inspection file 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000, and failure to maintain items in the public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268220A1.html
      • that the station maintained a public inspection file. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Smallwood apparently willfully violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file requirements is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of EAS equipment requirements is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268423A1.html
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Eagle West apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install and make operational EAS equipment in its cable system serving Mesa, Arizona. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268622A1.html
      • There were also no log entries describing when the EAS equipment first became defective. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ABG apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at station WRCG. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268870A1.html
      • we find that Patrick apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a), 17.50, and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure, and failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure located in Bastrop, Louisiana. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269170A1.html
      • only after being advised of the violation by a Commission agent. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pinnacle willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure number 1017802. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269171A1.html
      • There were also no log entries describing when the EAS equipment first became defective. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Russell apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at station KWRD. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269172A1.html
      • fence was not protective. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to maintain effective locked fences around the bases of its antenna structures. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for not having EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269174A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, its violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Multicultural apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.51 of the Rules, by failing to exhibit the structure's red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269285A1.html
      • consequently, numerous RMTs and RWTs were not received or transmitted. Therefore, One Mart's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that One Mart apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KEVT. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269362A1.html
      • evidence before us, we also find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(b)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain an EAS capable of transmitting EAS tests and failing to maintain a control system that provides personnel the capability to continuously control the transmitter. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of EAS equipment not being installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for violations of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269484A1.html
      • EAS test after that date. There were also no EAS logs and no Cable EAS Handbook available. Based on the evidence before us, we find that COMSOUTH apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an EAS capable of transmitting EAS tests. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269871A1.html
      • for special temporary authority to operate station WEHH and WELM at variance with their licenses. We find that Pembrook apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate stations WEHH and WELM in accordance with the modes and power authorized in its licenses. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Because Pembrook submitted evidence that it had purchased new beacon lights and was attempting to locate an individual to install the new lights, we reduce the proposed forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269872A1.html
      • to take action to repair the lights, we find that the violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore the violation was repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Roy apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),^16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,^17
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269873A1.html
      • before sunrise. There are no Commission records that authorize TPN to provide presunrise or post sunset service. Based on the information before us, we find that TPN willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times inconsistent with the terms of its station authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000 and for operating at times or with modes or powers other than those specified and made part of the license is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269875A1.html
      • evidence that the station had ever installed an EAS decoder at the station, and the station's license was granted May 2, 2005. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hispanic apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install an EAS decoder. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of EAS equipment not being installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270269A1.html
      • of the K43FO EAS equipment. 3ABN's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 3ABN repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at K43FO. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270800A1.html
      • antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Forever apparently willfully violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1027115. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the prescribed lighting and/or marking for antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270803A1.html
      • of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1005634; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1005634. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271063A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules, by failing to comply with painting and lighting requirements specified for antenna structure # 1013252, and for failing to ensure that the structure was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271598A1.html
      • of inspections on May 16 and 17, 2006, the agent observed that there was no Antenna Structure Registration number at the base of the tower. We admonish NBTY for failing to post the Antenna Structure Registration Number at the base of its tower in violation of Section 17.4(g). 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272108A1.html
      • and by operating station KTMR at times not authorized by the terms of the station authorization. Additionally, Siga Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower with radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting or marking is $10,000, and violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. Although Section 1.80 does not specify a base forfeiture amount for operation at unauthorized times, this violation is comparable to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272109A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hoak Media apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1034539 in Grand Junction, Colorado. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272110A1.html
      • to CVC. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find CVC apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install and make operational EAS equipment in its cable system serving Chula Vista, California. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272194A1.html
      • been programmed incorrectly and was operating with daytime power at night. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pittman apparently repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and exceeding authorized nighttime power. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the prescribed lighting for antenna structures is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272195A1.html
      • violation. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hoak Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the KGJT-LP EAS equipment and by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file violations is $10,000 and for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273679A1.html
      • an order for an EAS decoder after receiving an inspection scheduling telephone call but prior to the actual inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that L4 Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install an operational EAS decoder. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274320A1.html
      • us, we find that Omnicom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.47 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to observe the antenna structure lights on a daily basis in a manner that would ensure that all lights are working properly and failing to update tower ownership information. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274347A1.html
      • KCLV-FM for a period of over nine months, therefore, Zia's violation is repeated. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Zia apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment for stations KCLV(AM) and KCLV-FM. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274421A1.html
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Plascencia repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structures 1062806, 1062807, and 1062808. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275770A1.html
      • for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MIP apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1024137 in Grand Junction, Colorado. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275912A1.html
      • has occurred on more than one day and is, therefore, repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sprint apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.23 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1245660. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276079A1.html
      • Radio's violation occurred on more than one day; therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Action Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KZZR(AM) and KQHC-FM. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276992A1.html
      • of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1015782; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1015782. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277659A1.html
      • EAS decoder for station KMZE until after August 14, 2007. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcasters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277675A1.html
      • period. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Omni apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277834A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that PRTC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.47(a)(1), 17.50, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, failing to repaint the antenna structure, and failing to exhibit any of the required obstruction red lights. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277877A1.html
      • period. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Omni apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278098A1.html
      • with Section 17.57 of the Rules. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Metro apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a), 17.48(a), and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, notification, and registration requirements for antenna structure # 1018735. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or painting is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278100A1.html
      • maintain a complete public inspection file, and failing to maintain an effective locked enclosure around the energized base of one of the station's towers. We find that Star Power also apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000; violation of the public inspection file rule is $10,000; and failing to maintain an effective tower enclosure at the base of the tower is $7,000. However, because station WIQR's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278101A1.html
      • of the Rules by failing to maintain its antenna structure's paint in good condition, and failing to exhibit all of the required obstruction red lights. We also find that Telecom apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number at its antenna structure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278243A1.html
      • report, and the current station authorization. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcasters, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS and failing to maintain or make available a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to make available a complete public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278244A1.html
      • 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that IBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.50 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to maintain the paint of its antenna structure in good condition, and failing to notify the Commission of a change in structure ownership. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278643A1.html
      • 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that First Baptist apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to install the required EAS decoding/receiving equipment and failing to maintain a full-time managerial and staff presence at the station's main studio. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for not installing the required EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278796A1.html
      • registration number 1023390; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting; and by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information on antenna structure number 1023390. 18. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of an antenna structure is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278962A1.html
      • station's chief operator admitted that the station has not had EAS equipment since he became the chief operator in January 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that VOX apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279188A1.html
      • station's authorized power. We also find that Viva willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. We further find that Viva willfully and repeatedly violation Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain issues/programs lists for a two-year period. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits and operating at less than 90% of the station's authorized power is $4000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an operational EAS system is $8000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279954A1.html
      • WGBB station management of the incorrect ownership information on the ASR. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that WGBB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change of ownership of its antenna structure. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. We find that failure to notify the FAA of a tower light outage and failure to immediately notify the Commission of a change in antenna structure ownership constitute failures
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279955A1.html
      • by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1207183; by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1207183. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280705A1.html
      • us, we find that Mr. Glass apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and Section 301 of the Act by failing to have an operational EAS, failing to operate within authorized power limitations, and failing to have a license for the station's STL. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to operate within authorized power limitations is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280823A1.html
      • however, until May 23, 2007, more than one year later. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Holmes willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure number # 1017802. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281509A1.html
      • we find that Owner apparently willfully violated Section 17.47(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR numbers at the bases of his antenna structures and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint his antenna structures to maintain their visibility. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post an ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282165A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that D-Mitch apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. and failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the Public File is $10,000. Because station WBSC's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282249A1.html
      • had not painted or installed red lights on the structure since it acquired the structure on September 11, 1996. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Union Pacific apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules by failing to paint and light antenna structure #1065191. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282770A1.html
      • the Rules by operating station WIFI with excessive power, by failing to maintain fully operational EAS equipment for station WIFI, by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around a WIFI antenna tower, and by failing to maintain the radio issues/programs lists in the WIFI public inspection file. 26. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating with excessive power is $4,000, failing to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000, and failing to maintain an effective tower enclosure at the base of the tower is $7,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284298A1.html
      • before us, we find that Telava apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and failing to notify immediately the Commission of a change of ownership of the Tower with ASR number 1050197. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000, and failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284455A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the public inspection file is $10,000. Because station WLAA's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-285863A1.html
      • 2008 by its employees. Based on the evidence before us, we find that BK apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours, at a minimum, between August 1 and September 9, 2008. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286287A1.html
      • a minimum, violations occurred between June 22, 2007 and February 26, 2008. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jacksonville apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower's lights or light indicator at least once every 24 hours. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286431A1.html
      • before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules on May 9, 2008 by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286481A1.html
      • violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to display the ASR number at the base of antenna structure number 1012977 and apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.48(a) of the Rules by not reporting immediately a malfunctioning light, which could not be corrected within 30 minutes, to the FAA. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required information is $3,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286526A1.html
      • find that OMI apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours, at a minimum, between May 1 and October 9, 2008 at a time that would insure the proper operation of the antenna structure lighting. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286788A1.html
      • EAS equipment, transmitting unauthorized emissions, failing to enclose their antenna tower bases within effective fences, and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. We also find that Black Crow apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, unauthorized emissions is $4,000, AM tower fencing is $7,000 and violation of public file rules is $10,000. Because the WNDB public inspection file was partially complete, we conclude that a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286789A1.html
      • 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that PBS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise, and failing to notify the Commission immediately of a change in structure ownership. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286904A1.html
      • However, as of November 6, 2008, the Tower was still not registered in the ASR database. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Millworks apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its Tower located in Greenwell Springs, Louisiana. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286906A1.html
      • 73.3526 of the Rules by not reporting immediately a malfunctioning light, which could not be corrected within 30 minutes, to the FAA and failing to maintain a public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required information is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violating public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287327A1.html
      • 11, 2008. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mt. Rushmore apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WHB734 from its licensed location. 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment installed but not operational is $8,000, public file violations is $10,000 and for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-288139A1.html
      • granted February 12, 2008. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bethune-Cookman apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by operating a radio transmitter without a license and by failing to install the required EAS decoder. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for not installing the required EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-289662A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that ERF Wireless apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit continuously the medium intensity lighting on its antenna structure and failing to notify immediately the Commission of the ownership change for this structure. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290027A1.html
      • by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1023097; by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1023097. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290762A1.html
      • 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization by operating with an antenna model and orientation not authorized by its station license, operating at an unauthorized location, and failing to install required Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS equipment is $8,000. In
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290798A1.html
      • occurred for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MRBI apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1014422 in Pomona, California. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290812A1.html
      • one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lazer Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure numbers 1013829 and 1013830 in Santa Barbara, California. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file forms or required information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291888A1.html
      • before us, we find that Jackson willfully violated Section 11.35 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System (EAS) and failing to have an effective locked fence or other enclosures around the antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for EAS equipment not installed or operational and AM tower fencing are $8,000 and $7,000, respectively. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293305A1.html
      • that they had not notified the FAA regarding the outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Foundation, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all medium intensity obstruction lighting as specified, between May 10 and 18, 2009. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293306A1.html
      • for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Burken apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1219542 in Las Vegas, Nevada. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293418A1.html
      • of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was operational when the station was in operation between May 15, 2007 and February 13, 2009 and failing to maintain a full-time managerial and staff presence at the station's main studio on July 7 and August 3, 2009. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for not having operational EAS equipment installed and not maintaining a meaningful management and staff presence are $8,000 and $7,000, respectively. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293619A1.html
      • in 2004. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules by failing to paint or light its antenna structure in Hartwell, GA from the date the structure was constructed in March 2004 until August 18, 2009. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed painting and/or marking is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293822A1.html
      • monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; by failing to maintain the structure painting and lighting in accordance with the ASR specifications, and by failing to report the extinguishment of the top flashing red beacon on antenna structure #1002607. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294208A1.html
      • ownership information. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ECPI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all medium intensity obstruction lighting as specified and failing to immediately notify the Commission upon change in ownership information. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295044A1.html
      • obstruction lighting for several months. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Marconi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe the obstruction lighting at least once each 24 hours to insure the proper operation of the antenna structure lighting. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295453A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Waldec willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to conform the lighting on antenna structure number 1253674 with the FAA recommendations for the antenna structure. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting specifications is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295821A1.html
      • failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of its antenna tower, and failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Rodgson apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file during normal business hours. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000; failure to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000; and failure to maintain an effective locked fence or enclosure at the base of the antenna structure is $7,000. In
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296090A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Big Fish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure numbers 1044859 and 1066000 and failing to notify the FAA immediately of prolonged obstruction light outages. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296092A1.html
      • lights, using a properly maintained indicator and/or automatic alarm system designed to register or detect any lighting failure; by failing to maintain the structure lighting in accordance with the ASR specifications, and by failing to report the extinguishment of the top flashing red beacon on antenna structure #1012525. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296217A1.html
      • was installed and operational, failing to display the ASR number in a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure, failing to notify the FAA of a light outage, and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have operational EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296218A1.html
      • we find that KFW apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed and operational, failing to report an outage to the FAA, and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have operational EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296408A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that PRTC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.48 and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to notify the FAA immediately of a lighting outage and failing to exhibit all of the required red obstruction lights on January 12 and 18, 2010. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296989A1.html
      • inspection, Mr. Davis, as the owner of the structure, was required to maintain the painting and lighting requirements assigned to the antenna structure until the structure is dismantled. See 47 U.S.C. S: 303(q). On May 4, 2008, the agent notified the FAA of the outage, and the FAA issued a Notice to Airmen ("NOTAM") at that time. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296989A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296989A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-300921A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Big Fish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure numbers 1044859 and 1066000 and failing to notify the FAA immediately of prolonged obstruction light outages. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-248483A1.html
      • unofficial announcement of Commission Action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 516 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974) __________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 18, 2004 NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Janice Wise at (202) 418-7450 [5]Janice.Wise@FCC.GOV FCC ADJUSTS MAXIMUM FORFEITURE PENALTIES TO REFLECT INFLATION Washington, D.C.The Federal Communications Commission has amended Section 1.80(b) of its Rules to increase the maximum monetary forfeiture penalties available to it. This action implements the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2461, which requires federal agencies to adjust maximum statutory civil monetary penalties at least once every four years to reflect inflation. The amendment of Section 1.80(b) will be effective 30 days after publication in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2000.html
      • Gibsonburg, Ohio [267]Text [268]Word 09-21-2000 M.O.&O. EZ Sacramento, Inc., Sacramento, CA, Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Washington, D.C., Manassas, VA [269]Text [270]Word 09-20-2000 ORDER Commonwealth of VA State Corporation Commission v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. [271]Text [272]Word 09-19-2000 FORFEITURE ORDER Berkshire Communicators, Inc. [273]Text [274]Word 09-19-2000 ORDER Sprint Communications Company, L.P v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. [275]Text [276]Word 09-19-2000 ORDER Amendment of Section 1.80(b), Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation [277]Text [278]Word 09-15-2000 ORDER Illinois Bell Tel. Co. d/b/a Ameritech Illinois, et al v. Frontier Communications International, Inc.; WorldCom, Inc.; and, One Call Communications, Inc. [279]Text [280]Word 09-15-2000 M.O.&O. LG&E Energy Corp. [281]Text [282]Word 09-15-2000 CONSENT DECREE LG&E Energy Corp. [283]Text [284]Word 09-14-2000 M.O.&O. The Two Way Shop, Kennewick, WA [285]Text [286]Word 09-13-2000
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000114.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000114.html
      • unknown reasons, the communications provider did not do so. Additionally, Mr. Varela states that he acquired HCI in September 1998 and that no one brought the license cancellation to his attention. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the San Juan Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Varela's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000119.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000119.html
      • the amount to $14,000. 2. Arnold's Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition"), requests that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') specify the amounts assessed for each violation and state whether we arrived at the forfeiture amount by using any upward or downward adjustments. In this regard, Arnold argues that the forfeiture amount is excessive and should, at most, be $11,000 in accordance with Section 1.80 of the Rules. We calculated the forfeiture against Arnold as follows: $8,000 base amount for the ( 11.35 violation adjusted upward by $2,000 ($10,000); $3,000 base amount for the ( 73.1350 violations adjusted upward by $1,000 ($4,000); $1,000 base amount for the ( 73.1820 violation; and $1,000 for the ( 73.1870 violation. We made an upward adjustment of $2,000 to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000120.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000120.html
      • asserts that it made diligent efforts to bring the tower into compliance following notification of the lighting outages by the San Juan Office on July 3, 2000 and September 15, 2000. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining PRTC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01085.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01085.html
      • III. DISCUSSION Based on the evidence before us, we find that Telecorp Communications, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Commission's Rules by its failure to comply with the required lighting of antenna structures and by failing to notify FAA flight service stations of the outages. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for lighting and marking violations is $10,000. Applying this base amount to each of Telecorp's lighting violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $40,000. Telecorp violated the most serious of the Commission's antenna structure rules. As the Commission stated in its ATC decision, ``[u]nlit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01086.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01086.html
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base amount is $3,000 for each of SpectraSite's three failures to file required forms or information (i.e., failure to file ownership change information). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01087.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01087.html
      • the Act by a common carrier. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined that an appropriate base amount is $2,000 per violation. Application of that base amount to each of AT&T Wireless' violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $18,000. We
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011000.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011000.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Litelco's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011001.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011001.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Neclec's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011002.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011002.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Net-Tel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011003.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011003.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that NPI's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011004.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011004.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that NATC's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011005.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011005.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that North County's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011006.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011006.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Optel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011007.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011007.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Paging Source's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011008.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011008.html
      • act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that R and G Distributors' failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011009.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011009.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Trivergent's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011010.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011010.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that USA Mobile's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011011.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011011.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Vanguard's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011012.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011012.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Winsome's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011014.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011014.html
      • Advanced received the NAL on March 5, 2001, we have not received a response or payment. Having received nothing that would undermine the factual findings described in the NAL, we conclude that the violations as described occurred and that the proposed forfeiture should issue. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), Advanced Telecom. Network, Inc. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($46,700) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011103.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011103.html
      • support its claim of inability to pay, KYOO has submitted federal income tax returns for 1997 through 1999. In light of the evidence submitted, for which KYOO requested confidential treatment, we lower KYOO's proposed monetary forfeiture from $22,000 to $12,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, KYOO Communications, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for the willful violation of Sections 11.35(b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) of the Rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01111.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01111.html
      • inadvertent. Capstar accepted the CD with the multiple versions of ``The Real Slim Shady'' and did not take sufficient care to ensure that the unedited version would not be played. We thus believe that the airing of the unedited version of the song, however unintentional, was still willful. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011166.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011166.html
      • license application or request for program test authority or STA must be granted or Allen must terminate all unauthorized operation of Station KMCA immediately. Otherwise, Allen risks loss of the license for Station KMCA as well as additional forfeiture penalties. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, M.C. Allen Productions is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for: violating Section 301 of the Act and sections 73.1615 and 73. 1620 of the Commission's rules regarding a licensee's operation during modification of facilities and a permittee's commencement of program tests; and for violating
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011175.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011175.html
      • be reduced because it has no history of prior violations. After considering NetCom's history of compliance with the Commission's rules, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture from $13,000 to $10,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, NetCom Technologies, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand five hundred dollars ($10,500) for failing to register its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules and for failing to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011192.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011192.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Kaminski's apparent violation of section 73.1015 warrants the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. In assessing a forfeiture, section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011194.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011194.html
      • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we impose a forfeiture of $16,800 on WLDI, Inc. (``WLDI''), licensee of Station WCOM(FM), Bayamon, Puerto Rico, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. This action is taken pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). BACKGROUND On October 1, 1999, Chancellor Media Corporation, owner of WLDI, filed with the Commission an application to transfer control of WLDI to the Spanish Broadcasting System of Puerto Rico (``SBS''). WCOM(FM) broadcast the allegedly indecent material that is the subject of this order on October 18, 19 and 20, 1999. Just over one week later, on October 29, 1999,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011212.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011212.html
      • see no basis for finding otherwise in this case. In addition, although The KBOO Foundation has submitted a petition signed by listeners who support the ``Soundbox,'' we have previously ruled that neither the statute nor our case law permits a broadcaster to air indecent material merely because it is popular. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In assessing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011263.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011263.html
      • On March 23, 2001, the Commission's Seattle, Washington, Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) to Brockway. Brockway has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Brockway IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.html
      • of the Bureau's March 9, 2001 letter detailing the violations - does not defend substantively any specific instances of apparent violations, thereby indicating that the specific details provided in the Bureau letter were not needed by SBC to respond effectively to the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rule requiring ILECs promptly to post notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.html
      • the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Considering all of the circumstances described above, we find SBC apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $94,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's collocation rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011334.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011334.html
      • and repeated. Citadel does not dispute that the song was played repeatedly throughout the spring and summer months of 2000. Although Citadel contends that it attempted to render the song suitable for broadcast through editing, we believe that the licensee failed to purge a number of indecent references. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the general action in question, without
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011357.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011357.html
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, WWC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 101.31 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011364.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011364.html
      • us to evaluate the licensee's current financial condition, therefore, we cannot assess its ability to pay the forfeiture amount. Consequently, we must deny its request for rescission or reduction of the forfeiture based on its purported inability to pay. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, KASA Radio of Hogar, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violating Sections 73.54(d), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1590(a)(6), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01137.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01137.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to AA Beep. AA Beep has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, AA Beep IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 301 of the Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011466.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011466.html
      • asserts, however, that the basis for his Petition is the Smiths' ``desperate'' financial situation, which compels them to seek remission of the forfeiture. In support of his argument of financial hardship, Mr. Smith includes various financial documents. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011489.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011489.html
      • forfeiture order should be issued against Mr. Brewer, and that it should be for the maximum amount. The record evidence clearly shows that Mr. Brewer engaged in unlicensed operations of both an FM broadcast facility and an unlicensed STL on March 11, 2000, in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Sections 503(b) of the Act and 1.80 of the Commission's rules state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that he was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011580.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011580.html
      • Enforcement Bureau's San Francisco Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars to Mr. Nakamura. Mr. Nakamura has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a Marvin Eugene Barnes IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed amateur radio station. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within 30 days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011581.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011581.html
      • Director of the Enforcement Bureau's Atlanta Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty-four thousand dollars to Zachery. Zachery has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Zachery Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,000 for violating sections 11.35(a), 17.4(a), 17.48, 17.49, 17.50, 17.56, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Rules in its operation of WDWZ(AM). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within 30
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011584.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011584.html
      • contractor to provide twenty-four hour monitoring services for its tower. USA Tower maintains that it has acted in good faith in all respects regarding the incident that underlies the NAL, and thus, the forfeiture should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining USA Tower's response, and supplement thereto, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011585.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011585.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to Mitchell. Mitchell has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mitchell Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willful violation of Section 17.4 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011587.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011587.html
      • basis for reconsidering the Forfeiture Order. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Alan-Leonard Brockway's petition for reconsideration of the May 23, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 3. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01165.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01165.html
      • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Verizon operated without a valid license for over one year after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011746.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011746.html
      • (``NAL'') in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to HCTV. HCTV has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Ho'ona'auao Community TV, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011747.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011747.html
      • (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to NEPC. NEPC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Northeast Passage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willful violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011752.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011752.html
      • record, we conclude that the law in this area was not clear enough to justify the imposition of a forfeiture under the circumstances presented. We note that we need not address here the continuing applicability of the section 214 condition at issue in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the NAL issued to Telmex International Ventures USA, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for Telmex International Ventures USA, Inc., Gary M. Epstein, Esq., Latham & Watkins, 555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004. FEDERAL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011776.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011776.html
      • 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2000, and the Wyandot was navigated on September 20, 22, and 24, 2000. 8. In its response to the NAL issued March 27, 2001, Shepler's requests remission of the monetary forfeiture. III. Discussion 9. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 506(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commissions Rules, requires that the Commission, in examining Shepler's's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011832.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011832.html
      • a forfeiture proceeding is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking reinstatement of a cancelled license. If Falcon wishes to seek reinstatement of the license, it should file a request for reinstatement with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Falcon Radio, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for unauthorized operation of a radio station in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Falcon Radio, Inc., NAL/Acct. No.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01184.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01184.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the September 1, 2000, Memorandum Opinion and Order IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011858.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011858.html
      • amateur station until September 1, 2003. He has not operated his amateur radio station since turning in the license. In addition, Mr. Chan has submitted financial data demonstrating that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Accordingly, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $7,500 forfeiture is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) proposed in the March 10, 1999 NAL issued to Kornwell Chan IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Kornwell Chan, 1919 Audubon Drive, Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011867.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011867.html
      • the Act and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Califormula's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other aspects. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Califormula's motion for stay of the Forfeiture Order is dismissed as moot. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01187.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01187.html
      • have the apparatus or the technical ability to determine whether the devices he markets are compliant and contends that he should be able to rely on Skywave's representation that its devices are compliant. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the Atlanta Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Morrison's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011920.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011920.html
      • WBOT that are separate and distinct from the violations in this case. Consequently, Radio One does not have an overall history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, and a reduction of the forfeiture on this basis is not warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Radio One Licenses, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-one thousand five hundred dollars ($21,500) for violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(e), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1800(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 14. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011929.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011929.html
      • and enter the site. Hancock also indicates that both violations have been corrected. Finally, Hancock seeks reduction of the forfeiture amount, arguing that payment of the forfeiture would result in a financial hardship for the station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Hancock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012036.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012036.html
      • structures told the agents that he had been aware of one of the lighting outages and had reported it to the FAA but had not been aware of the other outage. III. Discussion 4. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mega's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012042.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012042.html
      • or reduction of the forfeiture based on its purported inability to pay. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. shall pay the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132940002'' and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012053.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012053.html
      • claims that there was a sign on the fence with space for the ASR number, but the number had been printed incorrectly and InfoAge was waiting for a replacement number at the time of the inspection. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining InfoAge's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012177.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012177.html
      • and were awaiting installation at the time of the inspection. Finally, Rego has submitted the first page of its federal tax return for 2000, presumably to demonstrate that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Rego's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012225.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012225.html
      • future. Broadwing also asks that the Commission take into account its past record of compliance with respect to the 197 towers it owned, asserting that the Commission has never assessed a forfeiture against Broadwing in connection with its operation of these towers. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Broadwing's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012280.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012280.pdf
      • Thus, SpectraSite is responsible for the acts and omissions of its monitoring service. Finally, although SpectraSite took expedient measures to correct the violation, its remedial actions, while commendable, are not a mitigating factor.7 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,9 SpectraSite Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on April 5, 2001. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012412.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012412.pdf
      • Field Office issued a $25,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Willis.2 Willis did not file a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Willis Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violating Sections 1.89(b), 11.35(a), 17.4(a)(2), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012517.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012517.pdf
      • reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order is not warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 Star's petition for reconsideration of the April 11, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules9 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012549.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012549.pdf
      • act or failure to act.17 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 9. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information.19 The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase to this base amount pursuant to upward adjustment criteria contained in the rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. Specifically, three factors warrant the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012560.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012560.pdf
      • urge Commission licensees to consider their operational environment in complying with Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. In some circumstances, licensees may find it prudent to install more selective monitoring equipment to ensure that harmful interference to shared frequencies is avoided. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,4 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the captioned NAL issued to Statcom IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Statcom Communications Corp., 1324 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York 1 0302, and to its counsel, Pamela Gaary, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, Chartered, 1111 19th Street,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01257.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01257.html
      • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Verizon operated without a valid license for over six months after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012582.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012582.pdf
      • ceased, the issuance of a forfeiture in this case suggests that carriers must choose between seriously prejudicing the public by shutting down facilities that are not causing any harm, or risk being subjected to a forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining WWC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012591.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012591.pdf
      • the staff. Here, there are more violations, but disclosure was voluntary. On balance, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture in the total amount of $20,000 is appropriate for the eight apparent violations involved here. IV. Ordering Clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, Northeast Utilities IS APPARENTLY LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000, for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.17. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within 30-days of the release of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Northeast Utilities SHALL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012621.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012621.pdf
      • that he would discontinue operating the radio station equipment, and has disposed of his equipment. According to Mr. Kramer, the proposed forfeiture amount is unfair in light of the other CB radio operators in the area. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Mr. Kramer's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012773.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012773.pdf
      • has long held that remedial action to correct a violation, while commendable, will generally not nullify a forfeiture penalty. See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973). On balance, we find that a $10,000 forfeiture should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,27 and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,28 M.C. Allen Productions FORFEIT to the United States the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for: violating 47 U.S.C. 301 and 47 C.F.R. 73.1615 and 73.1620, regarding a licensee's operation during modification of facilities and a permittee's commencement of program tests; and for violating 47 C.F.R. 73.1125(e) by failing to maintain a local or toll-free number
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012794.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012794.pdf
      • requests that the Commission revise the NAL to reflect the station manager's complete duties and to reflect that all station operations, other than accounts receivable, were not under the direction or oversight of Wilks. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining BBI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012816.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012816.pdf
      • and the third party failed to notify it of the extinguished beacon. Eure asserts that the violation was not repeated because the FCC agent observed the violation on only one day, June 9, 2001. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Eure's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012831.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012831.pdf
      • Section 399B of the Act, and Sections 73.503 and 73.3527 of the Commission's rules, respectively, by broadcasting announcements promoting a for-profit entity and for failing to maintain the station's public file. In light of the station's otherwise unblemished prior enforcement record, however, we find that a monetary sanction is not warranted to redress this rule violation. See Note to Section 1.80 (b)(4) of the Commission's rules.7 Instead, we believe that an admonishment is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. IV. Ordering Clauses 17. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Isothermal Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational station WNCW(FM), Spindale, North Carolina, IS ADMONISHED for broadcasting advertisements in violation of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012862.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012862.pdf
      • for NEPC to give its full attention to all of its correspondence, including the two NOVs and the NAL issued by the Philadelphia Office on October 20, 2000; December 7, 2000; and March 22, 2001, respectively. The information provided by NEPC adequately explains why it may have been difficult for NEPC to respond to Commission correspondence. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,4 we reduce the $7,000 forfeiture amount by the amount of the forfeiture assessed for NEPC's failure to respond to Commission correspondence ($4,000). 5. However, the fact remains that NEPC did fail to register its Forked River, New Jersey, antenna structure and it does not dispute the violation. Moreover, it has provided no basis upon which to reduce
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012903.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012903.pdf
      • NAL on August 7, 2001 accompanied by documentation regarding his ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. After reviewing Mr. Pettrey's response, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted based on Mr. Pettrey's inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the July 30, 2001 NAL issued to Jeffrey Alan Pettrey IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Jeffrey Alan Pettrey at 4014 West Main Street, Princeton, West Virginia
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012922.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012922.pdf
      • as to the development of EAS. Finally, MAPA appears to seek reduction of the forfeiture amount, on the basis that that payment of the forfeiture would result in a financial hardship for the station. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining MAPA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012937.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012937.pdf
      • and we deny HCTV's petition for reconsideration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Ho'ona'auao Community TV, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012997.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012997.pdf
      • license. 2. On September 10, 2001, the Commission's Dallas, Texas, Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 to Merrell.2 Merrell has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Merrell IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 and of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01306.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01306.html
      • relocate. Given Rebus's financial situation, we believe that assessment of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship. Therefore, we conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture amount to $1,000 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Rebus, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by operating station WTAL(AM) without the required EAS equipment. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01311.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01311.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) to Netcom for the noted violations. Netcom has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Netcom Technologies, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) for failing to register its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules and for failing to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01312.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01312.html
      • were on 161.19 MHz -- not on the frequency assigned to Union Pacific -- and were, thus, unauthorized. 11. We can find no basis for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture and, therefore, affirm the $10,000 forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01329.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01329.html
      • expiration date of the authorization for which renewal is sought ....''. The STA request was granted on October 6, 1999. On December 13, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the request for waiver of Section 1.949 and the late-filed renewal application. 3. On October 17, 2000, the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued a Notice of Apparent Liability in the amount of $5,000 to Econopage for operating paging station KNKJ435 without authorization. 4. On November 15, 2000, Econopage filed a response with the Commission in which it requests reduction of the forfeiture amount. Econopage asserts that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because it did submit its renewal application
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01330.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01330.html
      • and his birth certificate. Although he did not timely file his second set of documents, our review of the documents revealed nothing responsive to the facts alleged in the NAL. Additionally, nothing in the documents persuades us to reduce the $10,000 forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Mr. Rowland IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01338.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01338.html
      • a.m. and 10 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on or about October 18, 19, and 20, 1999, WLDI, Inc., violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming on Station WCOM(FM). Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01342.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01342.html
      • Isotropically Radiated Power (``EIRP'') is 63.4 dBm. Converting the radio station's EIRP of 63.4 dBm to an equivalent ERP results in an ERP of 61.3 dBm, which is greater than the 55 dBm ERP limit set by Section 101.31(b)(1)(vii) of the Rules. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Califormula IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01344.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01344.html
      • FCC Rcd 4387 (1991)(definition of willfulness contained in 47 U.S.C. � 312(f) applies equally to 47 U.S.C. � 503). Furthermore, a continuing violation is ``repeated'' if it lasts more than one day. Id, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the violations warrant the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice my require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $8,000 for an unauthorized substantial transfer
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01368.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01368.html
      • the Act by a common carrier. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined that an appropriate base amount is $2,000 per violation. Application of that base amount to each of VoiceStream's violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $24,000. We find
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01370.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01370.html
      • statements indicate that it had gross revenues of $237,171.30 in 1997, $190,935.93 in 1998, and $231,332.82 in 1999. The proposed forfeiture amount of $5,000 is not excessive in the context of these revenues. Therefore, we affirm the forfeiture of $5,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Joe L. Ford, d/b/a Ford Communications, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01382.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01382.html
      • 1999, Checkpoint filed an application for renewal of the authorization for that station and requested a waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules. On April 3, 2000, the Commission granted Checkpoint's waiver request and reinstated its authority to operate Station WPCA811. On December 14, 2000, the Enforcement Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to Checkpoint for operating without a valid license. In its response to the NAL, Checkpoint argues that the one-year statute of limitations in Section 503(b)(6)(B) prohibits the Commission from imposing the proposed forfeiture. In support of its assertion, Checkpoint states that it received Special Temporary
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01392.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01392.html
      • assessed for AT&T's alleged operation of a PCS station without authorization from a site in Humacao, Puerto Rico. Based on AT&T's response, it is clear that AT&T did not engage in the operation at issue in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to AT&T IS RESCINDED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01403.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01403.html
      • runs from December 1999 (one year before the issuance of the NAL) to March 24, 2000, and that the unauthorized operation of the captioned stations during that period does not warrant a $6,000 forfeiture. II. Discussion 4. As the NAL explicitly states, TPSD assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Commercial Radio's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01456.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01456.html
      • for the base amount of $4,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that El Mundo's ``petition for reconsideration'' filed November 22, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent that we approve a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $6,000 to $4,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, El Mundo Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of Stations WKAQ(AM), San Juan, PR, and WUKQ(AM), Ponce, PR, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00), for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01458.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01458.html
      • the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. However, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is the base amount for this violation. Therefore, we are reducing the forfeiture amount to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) on our own motion. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Dr. John G. Pierre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01459.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01459.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to Ohio Bell. Ohio Bell has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01502.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01502.html
      • WCVP. During our review of FCC records, we found that Cherokee Broadcasting had a history of overall compliance with the Rules. Consequently, in this case, we will reduce the $8,000 forfeiture to $6,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Cherokee Broadcasting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,500 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requiring it to have operating EAS equipment in place. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01504.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01504.html
      • states that, following the second false ELT activation, it installed a new ELT. In addition, Oahu Aviation apologized for the false activations and promised to take ``every precaution to prevent any further disruption.'' III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the Honolulu Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') requires that, in examining Oahu Aviation's response, the Commission take into account the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01526.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01526.html
      • it can provide the necessary information on the tower registration form. Radford also requests that we take into account its financial status and provides tax returns for 1997, 1998 and 1999. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Radford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01537.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01537.html
      • 2, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we impose a forfeiture of $7,000 on Infinity Radio License, Inc. (``Infinity''), licensee of Station WLLD(FM), Holmes Beach, Florida, for a willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. This action is taken pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. By Notice of Apparent Liability, DA 00-2724, released December 5, 2000 (``NAL''), we determined that certain material apparently broadcast over WLLD(FM) on September 11, 1999, was indecent. After considering the context, we opined that the language from two discrete excerpts from the live rap and hip hop concert, ``The Last Damn Show,'' contained patently offensive references to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01540.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01540.html
      • which supported the downward adjustments made to the proposed forfeitures. In both instances, the carriers submitted plans to eliminate their universal service debts to USAC and commenced paying down their arrearages prior to issuance of their respective Notices of Apparent Liability. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), North American Telephone Network, LLC is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01542.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01542.html
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Advanced continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Advanced's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Advanced Telecom. Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($46,700) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Advanced Telecom.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01582.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01582.html
      • necessary to foster compliance or serve as a deterrent.'' Contrary to TeleCorp's assertion, it has not demonstrated any good faith compliance with the lighting rules. Additionally, although it has apparently rectified its outstanding violations, we note that its corrective action will not excuse its past violations. After reviewing Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, section 1.80 of the Rules, the facts, and TeleCorp's response to the NAL, we believe that the $80,000 forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, TeleCorp IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $80,000 for willfully
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01596.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01596.html
      • the day after its prior permit expired, and December 12, 2000, when it received an STA. Telemundo's apparent violation of Section 325(c) of the Act during this period is aggravated by its history of noncompliance with Section 325(c) between 1993 and 1995. Under these circumstances, we conclude that a monetary forfeiture appears warranted. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, which provides further guidance in establishing appropriate forfeiture amounts, does
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01661.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01661.html
      • - TV6 transferred control of K06MU to Bear Valley Broadcasting, Inc. prior to having received Commission authorization to do so. Having received nothing to suggest otherwise, we conclude that the unauthorized transfer occurred and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that K.I.D.S. - TV6 FORFEIT to the United States the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 310(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3540(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01671.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01671.html
      • entitled to leniency because it cannot afford to pay a forfeiture. If we deem a forfeiture appropriate on the basis of facts unrelated to Skywave's financial circumstance, Skywave asserts, the Bureau should consider reducing the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)(``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01672.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01672.html
      • Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. We, therefore, can find no basis for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture and affirm the Forfeiture Order. Consistent with a prior statement by the Commission, our forfeiture relates to the period before AA Beep filed its renewal application. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01680.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01680.html
      • in paragraph five above do not serve to reduce the proposed forfeiture in the NAL. In the each of the months at issue, SBC violated the Business Rules in other material respects, and the $8000 proposed forfeiture for each of those months will stand. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01682.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01682.html
      • a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with at least one other case involving a similar transgression. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, PCS Partners, L.P. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01701.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01701.html
      • of the Rules requires SpectraSite to immediately notify the Commission of any change in tower ownership. Compliance with this rule obviates the need to send copies of violation notices to any entity other than the tower owner of record. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, SpectraSite Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for violating Sections 17.57 and 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of changes in tower ownership, failing to post ASR numbers, and in one instance, failing to post the correct ASR number. 6. Payment of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01708.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01708.html
      • have records to support its assertions that its employees posted the ASR numbers in conformance with the Commission's Rules and its corporate compliance plan. 10. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that no further reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. In conclusion, after reviewing Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, the facts, and AT&T Wireless' opposition to the NAL, we believe that a $14,000 forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, AT&T Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01714.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01714.html
      • Station KPS323 did not cause interference or otherwise negatively affect the provision of any other telecommunications service; and (4) Page-Comm has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Page-Comm's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01720.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01720.html
      • result reached in the Forfeiture Order. Therefore, we will deny its petition for reconsideration. III. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01721.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01721.html
      • pay. After reviewing T & W Communications's financial documentation, we find that the $6,500 proposed forfeiture is reasonable given its gross receipts or sales of $510,816 (1997), $406,814 (1998), $511,304 (1999), and $370,928 (through September of 2000). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, T & W Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,500 for violating Sections 17.4(a)(2) and 73.49 of the Rules requiring it to register its antenna structure and to enclose that antenna structure with an effective locked fence. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01784.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01784.html
      • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) to Christian Broadcasting for the noted violations. Christian Broadcasting has not filed a response. Therefore, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Christian Broadcasting Corporation, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for failing to respond to Commission correspondence in willful violation of Section 1.89(b) of the Rules, and for failing to register the antenna structure of radio station WBOK in willful violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Payment of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01792.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01792.html
      • were bleeped and arguably would not have been understandable to all viewers. Moreover, although some of the segments may have been short, this is not a case where there is a fleeting or passing sexual reference. Rather, this episode contains a series of segments with ongoing unmistakable sexual references. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01811.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01811.html
      • exigent matters has prevented my response until now.'' We conclude that American has not provided evidence of ``unavoidable circumstances'' that would explain its 17 month delay in responding to the NOV. We also reject American's argument that the Commission ``lacks the moral authority'' to impose forfeitures on its regulatees who violate the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules clearly authorize the Commission to assess forfeiture penalties on regulatees who violate the Act or the Rules. American's assertions concerning the Commission's ``moral authority'' provide no basis for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. Accordingly, we deny its petition for reconsideration. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01812.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01812.html
      • broadcast of indecent material apparently had no impact on the airing of the cited material, and its current procedures for editing ``Kramer and Twitch'' and advising audiences about its content have no bearing on whether a forfeiture should be imposed. See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973). 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. As explained
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01823.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01823.html
      • of control.'' As detailed in the NAL, Citicasters assumed control of WBTJ(FM) without having received Commission authorization to do so. Having received nothing to suggest otherwise, we conclude that the unauthorized transfer occurred and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Citicasters Co. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 310(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3540(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01824.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01824.html
      • to Voice Stream for violation of Section 17.4(g) of the Rules. In its responses to the NOVs, VoiceStream indicated that it had corrected the violations by posting the antenna structures' ASR numbers. III. Discussion 4. As the NAL explicitly states, the Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining VoiceStream's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01870.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01870.html
      • crudely relayed her fondness for oral sex. See Regent Licensee of Flagstaff, Inc. (KZGL(FM)), 15 FCC Rcd 17286 (Enforcement Bureau 2000). We have consistently deemed such material indecent, and we believe the same result is warranted here. See also Rusk Corporation (KLOL(FM)), 5 FCC Rcd 6332 (Mass Media Bureau 1990). 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In assessing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01899.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01899.html
      • 1998, to: ``License Renewal Division, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.'' Star asserts that the FCC did not respond to inquiries about the application's status. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Star's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01909.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01909.html
      • to his family. Mr. LaPierre's combined gross income and gross sales amounted to $178,947 in 1999 and $179,048 in 1998. After reviewing his financial documentation, we find that the $4,000 forfeiture is reasonable given his gross income and gross sales. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01966.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01966.html
      • grant of its renewal application. Now that it faces a monetary forfeiture for unauthorized operation, AA Beep disavows this assertion. However, AA Beep provides no explanation for its change in position. We have reviewed this matter thoroughly and find no basis for rescinding the Forfeiture Order. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01967.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01967.html
      • an unlicensed frequency, and claims that such operation was caused by a malfunctioning transmitter. We have considered Callcomm's arguments and reviewed the record, and we conclude that the record is insufficient to support a finding that Callcomm operated an unlicensed radio station. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), the monetary forfeiture issued against Callcomm IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Callcomm's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other aspects. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01974.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01974.html
      • for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of thirteen thousand five hundred dollars ($13,500) to Mr. Smith for the noted violations. Mr. Smith has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jerry Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,500) for operating a CB Radio Station with a non-type-accepted transmitter, with a transmitter output power greater than four watts carrier power in the AM (A3) mode, and with an external RF power amplifier, in willful and repeated violation of Sections 95.409(a),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01991.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01991.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Allpage's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01992.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01992.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that American Metrocomm's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01993.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01993.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that ATX's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01994.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01994.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that CDS's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01995.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01995.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Chickasaw's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01996.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01996.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Core's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01997.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01997.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Digital Teleport's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01998.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01998.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Fulltel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01999.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01999.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that IDS's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb00tc177.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb00tc177.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc012.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc012.pdf
      • the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and . . . shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d), (e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc012.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc015.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc015.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc016.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc016.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc019.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc019.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 (b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc020.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc020.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc021b.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc021b.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc023.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc023.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc024.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc024.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc027b.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc027b.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc028.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc028.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc051.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc051.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc065.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc065.pdf
      • the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and . . . shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d), (e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc065.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01009.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01009.html
      • 503 of the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for ATC's lighting violation. The base forfeiture amount is $3,000 for each of ATC's 26 instances of failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration (two violations) and failure to notify the Commission of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01018.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01018.html
      • 320, was filed on October 28, 1998, for tests performed on August 10, 1998. A test should have been performed before August 10, 1999, and should have been reported to us on or before December 31, 1999. Conclusion The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules. ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision. ``Repeated'' means
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01044.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01044.html
      • C.F.R. � 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof shall be on the Enforcement Bureau as to all of the foregoing issues. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(3)(A), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, whether an Order of Forfeiture in an amount not to exceed two hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($275,000) shall be issued against Family Broadcasting, Inc. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating Sections 1.89, 11.35, 73.49, 73.1015, 73.1350(a), 73.1560(a), 73.1560(b), 73.1690(b)(2) and/or 73.3526 of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in connection with the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01048.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01048.html
      • As we stated in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, forfeitures should not be simply an affordable cost of doing business. We continue to believe that a forfeiture in the amount of $113,000 is appropriate based on all the facts and circumstances of this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Matrix IS LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 254 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 254, and Section 54.706 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01087.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01087.html
      • amount of $40,000 for each of 17 apparent violations. ATNC's apparent intentional and repeated misconduct represents a gross dereliction of its verification obligations; accordingly, we propose increasing the forfeiture by 50%, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $1,020,000. 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Tele-Network Corp IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,020,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.html
      • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01106.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01106.html
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If PTT continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke PTT's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, PTT Telekom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($137,000) for violating the Act and our rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, PTT Telekom, Inc. SHALL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01113.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01113.html
      • and ANI have apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders as identified above. We have further determined NOS Communications, Inc. and Affinity Network Incorporated are apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $500,000 each. 21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that NOS Communications, Inc. and Affinity Network Incorporated ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $500,000 each, for willful or repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01124.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01124.html
      • 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Vista Services Corporation, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), Vista's Motion for Stay filed on November 22, 2000, IS DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December to August, 1999 governing interexchange carrier conversions. FEDERAL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01128.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01128.html
      • basis for reconsidering the AT&T NAL, except with regard to the Krumweide and Agnew complaints as discussed above. Further, AT&T has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty for the remaining 11 violations. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that AT&T Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of five hundred twenty thousand dollars ($520,000) for violating Sections 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01154.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01154.html
      • reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.� 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Coleman Enterprises, Inc. IS DENIED. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Coleman Enterprises Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from June, 1998 through May, 1999 governing interexchange carrier conversions.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01184.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01184.html
      • ORDERING CLAUSES For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 503 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503, the Application for Review filed by SBC Communications IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01187.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01187.html
      • on April 9, 2001, we have not received a response or payment of the proposed forfeiture. Having received nothing that would undermine the factual findings described in the NAL, we conclude that the violations as described occurred and that the proposed forfeiture should issue. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), PTT Telekom, Inc. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($137,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01197.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01197.html
      • 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part the January 31, 2001 application for review filed by Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("Arnold"), licensee of Station KNEC-FM, of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the Enforcement Bureau ("EB") found Arnold liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $14,000 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 11.35 (failure to install and maintain operable Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment), 73.1350 (failure to have a transmitter control system in place which would allow the transmitter to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01215.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01215.html
      • missed certain statutory deadlines. Nevertheless, the argument that this affects the Commission's authority to impose a forfeiture is frivolous and the Bureau properly rejected it. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc.'s application for review IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01222.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01222.html
      • 2001 Released: August 10, 2001 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we dismiss the May 24, 2001 application for review filed by Page-A-Phone, Inc. ("Page-A-Phone"), licensee of Stations WRV927 and WXR916, of the Forfeiture Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the Enforcement Bureau found Page-A-Phone liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,500 for willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Rules by failing to file license renewal applications for paging Stations WRV927 and WXR916 prior to the expiration of the authorizations for the stations. 2. The Forfeiture Order issued in this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01242.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01242.html
      • operate the relevant translator stations at any time in the future absent further Commission or court action giving it authority to do so. Such affidavit shall be filed no later than 10 days from the release of this order. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Peninsula Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) for violating Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301, by operating the seven captioned translator stations subsequent to midnight May 19, 2001. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01254.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01254.html
      • stated above, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Limited Reconsideration filed by AT&T Communications, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that AT&T Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of five hundred and twenty thousand ($520,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order On Reconsideration shall be sent by certified United States mail to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.html
      • in light of its $2,000 net operating loss for 1997. The record must contain more than such unsupported statements in order for the Commission to evaluate the effect of financial indicators such as a carrier's gross revenues or net losses. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that All American Telephone Company, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of nine hundred twenty thousand dollars ($920,000) for violating Section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred interexchange carrier conversions. Payment shall be made in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01301.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01301.pdf
      • US Notary has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that that there is any basis for reducing or rescinding the forfeiture proposed in the US Notary NAL. We therefore impose a $90,000 forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F. R. 1.80, that US Notary, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $90,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 14. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01308.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01308.pdf
      • or failure to act.68 In determining the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''69 56. Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $3,000 for violations of section 1.65.70 The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase in this base amount under certain upward adjustment criteria contained in the Rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement: the egregiousness of the misconduct and SBC's ability to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01326.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01326.pdf
      • its ruling was correct and that no basis exists to warrant reversal. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules,6 AA Beep's application for review of the MO&O released on April 19, 2001, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the five thousand dollar ($5,000) monetary forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01365.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01365.pdf
      • we find that ATNC has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the ATNC NAL. Further, ATNC has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that ATNC Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,020,000 for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions.49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture shall be sent by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-03A1.html
      • while commendable, are not a mitigating factor.5 However, after considering Palouse's overall history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture from $10,000 to $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 Palouse Country, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violating Sections 73.1400(a)(1)(ii), 73.1560(a), 73.1580, and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1073A1.html
      • to file an NRUF report for one OCN, which was referenced in our NAL. We have not received a response from Allpage to suggest otherwise. Thus, we conclude that Allpage willfully violated section 52.15(f) and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Allpage FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1078A1.html
      • the Commission's adoption of the reporting requirements for number utilization and forecast data and the effective date of Section 52.15(f). We therefore conclude that Litelco is not subject to the reporting requirements of section 52.15(f) and that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate.5 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against Litelco Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Richard Steiner, Litelco Communications, Inc., 23 Ostend Road, Island Park, NY 11558. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 See Litelco Communications, Inc.,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1086A1.html
      • its response, Friendship does not dispute the violations. Rather, Friendship states that it has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and, consequently, requests a waiver of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Friendship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1091A1.html
      • Commission's inspection. Tidewater also submits that there is no probative and acceptable evidence that the violation was repeated apart from the one day that the Navy pilot and the Norfolk Office Resident Agent observed the antenna structure on November, 6, 2001. Finally, Tidewater maintains that imposition of the base amount forfeiture of $10,000 for this type of violation under Section 1.80(b)(4)5 is too high and claims that the Norfolk Office did not consider its good faith or voluntary disclosure, and its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1127A1.html
      • the Forfeiture Order.5 3. As indicated in the petition for reconsideration, certain information set forth in the NAL does not pertain to Lightning. After reviewing the entire record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. See Section 503(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) of the Act.6 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act,7 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 the captioned NAL issued to Lightning IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Lightning's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and IS DENIED in all other respects. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1141A1.html
      • the Commission's Miami, Florida, Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $17,000 to CTI for the noted violations.3 CTI has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 CTI IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act and repeatedly and willfully violating Section 302a (b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1181A1.html
      • to PREPA for a forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the noted violation.2 PREPA has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1295A1.html
      • further reduction. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),9 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,10 MAPA's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby DENIED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act11 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,12 MAPA Broadcasting, L.L.C. shall pay the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132620005,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1298A1.html
      • York Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $10,000 to Rev. Dr. Nicholas. Rev. Dr. Nicholas has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"),4 Rev. Dr. Philius Nicholas IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1307A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Brothers for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the noted violation.2 Brothers has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Thomas A. Brothers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1314A1.html
      • radio station. 2. On January 10, 2002, the District Director of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Office issued the NAL to Networx. Networx filed a response on February 11, 2002. After considering Networx's response and reviewing the record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled.3 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act4 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the NAL issued to Networx Corporation IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Networx Corporation, 1 Fishers Road, Pittsford, New York 14534, and to its counsel, Timothy K. Brady, Esquire, P.O. Box 71309, Newnan, Georgia 30271.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1336A1.html
      • imposed without an evidentiary hearing cannot be used to the prejudice of that entity unless a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final order after a trial de novo requiring payment of the forfeiture. See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles (KROQ-FM), supra, 16 FCC Rcd at 6869. 18. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1347A1.html
      • provisions, the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines.5 Because CDS ceased operating as a competitive local exchange carrier, we conclude that CDS was not subject to the reporting requirements of section 52.15(f) in September 2000 and that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate.6 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b), and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against CDS Networks, Inc. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to John C. Tooker, President, CDS Networks, Inc., P.O. Box 1165, Medford, Oregon 97501. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 See CDS Networks, Inc., 16
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1348A1.html
      • amount.16 We have reviewed Chickasaw's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and conclude that Chickasaw has not justified cancellation of the proposed forfeiture but that its overall record justifies a reduction of the forfeiture from $6,000 to $4,800. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Chickasaw Telephone Co. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1349A1.html
      • have reviewed Digital Teleport's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and conclude that Digital Teleport has not justified cancellation of the proposed forfeiture but that its overall record justifies a reduction of the forfeiture from $6,000 to $4,800. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Digital Teleport, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1350A1.html
      • requirements is considered a willful violation.8 Moreover, FullTel's pledge of future compliance does not justify reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture penalty.9 We have reviewed Fulltel's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that FullTel, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1351A1.html
      • therefore conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted.10 We have reviewed IDS's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that IDS has justified a reduction of the proposed forfeiture penalty from $6,000 to $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that IDS Telcom, LLC FORFEIT to the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1352A1.html
      • intermediate carrier and thus was required to report only utilization data. We have reviewed R&G's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that R&G has not justified reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Accordingly, we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that R&G Distribution FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1365A1.html
      • of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988). 6. In this case, we find that Results apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting Mr. Davison's conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules,5 each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1429A1.html
      • and that payment of the forfeiture would result in a serious financial hardship for the station. In support of this argument, TV 45 provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining TV 45's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1484A1.html
      • the Commission's Miami, Florida Resident Agent Office issued a $10,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Leger for the noted violation.2 Leger has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 James Leger IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1502A1.html
      • find that the material broadcast on WKQX(FM), in context, is patently offensive.13 Emmis does not dispute that the complained of material was broadcast when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. By broadcasting this material, WKQX(FM) apparently violated the prohibitions against broadcast indecency. 10. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1571A1.html
      • Policy Statement14 does not explicitly identify a base forfeiture amount for violations of section 73.1207(b) of the rules. However, considering all the facts and circumstances and Commission precedent, we find that a forfeiture of $1,000.00 is apparently warranted.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 16 and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the rules,17 Concilio Mision Cristiana Fuente de Agua Viva, Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1207(b), which prohibits a broadcast station from rebroadcasting the program or any part thereof of another broadcast station, without obtaining the express, written authority of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1775A1.html
      • to the subject violations and elaborates on other information, some personal in nature, which it first presented in response to the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.3 After reviewing the particular circumstances presented in this case, in accord with the discretion provided to us by Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 (``Act'') and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that reduction of the $3,500 forfeiture to $500 is warranted in this case. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 C.W.H. Broadcasting, Inc.'s Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 4. Payment of the $500 forfeiture shall be made in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1834A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $5,000 to Mr. McCreary. Mr. McCreary has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mr. McCreary IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully violating Section 95.411 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1835A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $4,000 to WRHC. WRHC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 WRHC Broadcasting Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1836A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $2,000 to New Wave. New Wave has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 New Wave Broadcasting, L.P. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1837A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $7,000 to Mr. Bushman. Mr. Bushman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mr. Sam Bushman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1844A1.html
      • between the old tower and the current tower is ``very small in absolute terms.'' Finally, ACS argues that the proposed $1,000 forfeiture for failure to maintain records is ``duplicative'' and unwarranted, and that it has a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining ACS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1850A1.html
      • of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992). After reviewing the financial documentation submitted by M&R, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $5,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that M&R Enterprises, Inc. is LIABLE for a FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.3526. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1887A1.html
      • the questionable nature of the guest's material and could have used a time-delay device, does not relieve Rubber City of liability. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find that on November 29, 2001, WONE-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1921A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $21,000 to Fenix. Fenix has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Fenix Broadcasting Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully violating Sections 11.35(a), 17.51, and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1945A1.html
      • to the World Communications, Inc., supra (where $5,000 forfeiture was originally imposed for numerous noncompliant television underwriting announcements repeated over one-year period).25 This case is more serious, as it involves the broadcast of a larger number of advertisements on many occasions over a lengthy period of time. These factors warrant substantial compounding of the base forfeiture amount. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). However, we do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2001A1.html
      • Sycamore also argues that the forfeiture should not be imposed because ``we have corrected all the problems referenced and we have made every attempt to operate in compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Sycamore's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2017A2.html
      • conduct is considered by the Commission or its delegated authority in determining an appropriate sanction, Verizon will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of Verizon's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. 17. Verizon waives any and all rights it may have to seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal or stay, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Consent Decree and the Adopting Order, provided the Order adopts the Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification. 18. Verizon waives any rights it may have
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2020A1.html
      • Commission authorization; that an application has been filed to assign the license for WLVA(AM);4 and that the towers at issue have been dismantled, correcting the violation. In neither response does Madison dispute the violations. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Madison's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-208A1.html
      • the average broadcast listener, we find that the material broadcast on KNDD(FM), in context, is patently offensive.13 This material appears to be actionably indecent because it was broadcast after 6 a.m. and within the period when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. 12. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2094A1.html
      • mitigating Family Life's claim, even if true, that its inability to afford to hire properly trained personnel contributed to its apparent rule violation. Noncommercial licensees are responsible for complying with Section 399B of the Act. See, e.g., Minority Television Project, Inc. (DA 02-1945), ___ FCC Rcd ___ (released August 9, 2002). Consequently, we believe a monetary sanction appears warranted. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specifies that the base amount for an underwriting rule violation is $2,000. In this case, we believe that no adjustment upward or downward is warranted and that the base forfeiture amount is appropriate. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). IV. Ordering Clauses 8. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a monetary sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, pursuant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2137A1.html
      • by the agent on April 27, 2000 that exceeded the threshold limit of 20 micro-volts, Charter was fulfilling its regulatory requirements with a monitoring and maintenance program that yielded a compliant CLI test result. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Charter's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-219A1.html
      • the SUNY case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,15 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,16 Radio One's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 14, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules17 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.18 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2205A1.html
      • notified of the violations after the January 9th inspection, the violations would have ceased then. Finally, Tarrant argues that the forfeiture should be reduced on the basis of the licensee's history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')2 Section 1.80 of the Rules,3 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Tarrant's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-230A1.html
      • 28, 2002, has not been completed. To the extent, if any, that Groveton seeks to rely on its efforts to correct this violation, we note that remedial action, although commendable, will not nullify a forfeiture penalty.4 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Groveton Broadcasting Group, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2336A1.html
      • and again in a meeting with the Audio Division on April 23, 2002, it offered to take KBKC off the air until the waiver request was processed, but was told that was not necessary. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AFA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2365A1.html
      • Alpine requests the Commission to consider that it took immediate corrective action once it became aware that the contract engineer in charge of the relocation project failed to timely install the EAS equipment. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Alpine's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-23A1.html
      • this factor. See id. at 20.11 12. Consequently, based on our review of Citadel's response in light of the applicable case law, we conclude that Citadel did not violate the statute or the Commission's indecency rule through its broadcast of the ``radio edit'' version of ``The Real Slim Shady.'' IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's June 1, 2001, NAL against Citadel Broadcasting Company, licensee of Station KKMG(FM), Pueblo, Colorado, is hereby RESCINDED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested to Kathleen A.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2400A1.html
      • by Infinity Radio License, Inc. IS DENIED. 6. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(a). 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2401A1.html
      • License Corporation's petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(a). 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2402A1.html
      • 1. In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a forfeiture of $12,000 on Entercom Seattle License, LLC (``Entercom''), licensee of Station KNDD(FM), Seattle, Washington, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, which prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at certain times of day. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received a complaint that KNDD(FM) broadcast indecent material on May 30, 2001 and on June 1, 2001. The complainant described the material broadcast, which, the complainant alleged, concerned whether a penis could be used to lift or pull objects. After reviewing the complaint, we issued a letter of inquiry to Entercom. Entercom submitted a response,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2473A1.html
      • and lighting. Concilio further requests that we give special consideration to its non-profit status, although it has not submitted any information suggesting that its financial situation would make payment of the forfeiture difficult. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Concilio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2474A1.html
      • deny the violations alleged in the NAL but contends that, in view of the cancellation of Lightning's forfeiture in the earlier proceeding, this forfeiture proceeding is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and ``law of the case.'' III. Discussion 9. The Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act,11 Section 1.80 of the Rules,12 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act13 requires that, in examining Lightning's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2477A1.html
      • 16795, 16797 (EB 2001), citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970). 11. Sanction. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a sanction is appropriate. However, we do not believe a monetary sanction is necessary to redress the instant rule violations, and instead conclude that an admonishment is sufficient at this time. See Note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). IV. Ordering Clauses 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Calvary Bible College, licensee of noncommercial educational station KLJC(FM), Kansas City, Missouri, IS ADMONISHED for broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.503. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice shall be
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2665A1.html
      • certain financial information. Faith Bible also states that following the inspection, it had the EAS equipment repaired and that it has instructed its Chief of Operations to keep the EAS logs up to date. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Faith Bible's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2691A1.html
      • this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") we grant in part and deny in part the Petition for Reconsideration1 filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC ("Radio One"), licensee of WBOT(FM),2 of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O")3 issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),4 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"),5 the Enforcement Bureau found Radio One liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $21,500 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 11.35(a) (failure to have operational Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment); 73.1125(e) (failure to establish a local or toll-free telephone number in the community of license); 73.1350(c)(1) (failure to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-26A1.html
      • January 8, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a forfeiture of $14,000 on Emmis FM License Corp. of Chicago (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received letters dated March 20, 2000, and May 15, 2000, complaining about material aired on Station WKQX(FM) on each of those dates during the ``Mancow Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program. The March complaint alleged that the station broadcast a conversation between 8:13 a.m. and 8:16 a.m., which the complainant deemed indecent. The May complaint alleged that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-272A1.html
      • although the complainant originated the call, the on-air personality could not reasonably have presumed that the complainant had the awareness required by the rule. Therefore, Entercom's recording of the conversation and subsequent broadcast thereof without sufficient notice violated Section 73.1206 of the rules.2 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard to any specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2793A1.html
      • to and scammed and that the station was a week away from dismantling when the FCC visited the station the second time. Finally, Mr. Muoz submits that neither he nor his church has the funds to pay the $10,000 forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Muoz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2824A1.html
      • the Commission's Denver, Colorado Field Office (``Denver Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $10,000. Mount Rushmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Mount Rushmore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2825A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $3,000. Mount Rushmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Mount Rushmore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1350 and 73.1400 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2856A1.html
      • District Director of the Commission's Kansas City, Missouri Field Office issued the NAL to USCC. USCC filed a response on July 5, 2002. After considering USCC's response and reviewing the record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled.3 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the NAL issued to United States Cellular Corporation IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to United States Cellular Corporation, 8410 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Suite 700, Chicago, Illinois 60631, and to its counsel, Peter M. Connolly, Esquire,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2914A1.html
      • District Office issued a $17,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Cornbelt Broadcasting for the noted violations.2 Cornbelt Broadcasting has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Cornbelt Broadcasting Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(g), and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.5 If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-291A1.html
      • automatic alarm system will be reduced if VelociTel must pay the full forfeiture amount; and that investing in safety is a better use for ``scarce resources'' than payment of a forfeiture. III. Discussion 6. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act7 requires that, in examining VelociTel's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2937A1.html
      • 1. In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a forfeiture of $21,000 on Emmis Radio License Corporation (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, which prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at certain times of day. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received complaints that WKQX(FM) broadcast indecent material on March 6, 2001, March 7, 2001 and May 17, 2001 between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. during the ``Mancow's Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program. The complainant submitted a tape of each of the Mancow programs containing the allegedly indecent material. After reviewing the complainant's tapes, we issued letters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3031A1.html
      • station personnel. In addition, Oberlin asserts that payment of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on it and submits financial information for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Oberlin's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3032A1.html
      • other day, and that locks were installed on the date of inspection and have been in place since that date. Therefore, Mitchell argues that there was no willful or repeated violation of Section 73.49. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mitchell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3070A1.html
      • applicable provisions of the Commission's rules. Under these circumstances, we find that complainant's telephone call falls within the ``call-in'' presumption of Section 73.1206, such that notice is not required in this case.3 We, therefore, conclude that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against Entercom New Orleans License, LLC IS HEREBY CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Entercom New Orleans License, LLC, c/o John C. Donlevie, Executive Vice President, Entercom New Orleans License, LLC, 401 City Avenue, Suite 409, Bala Cynwyd,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3105A1.html
      • FM radio station operating on that frequency was 70 miles away and thus it believed that that station was beyond the range of possible interference.18 Finally, California Speedway argues that it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,19 Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.21 In examining California Speedway's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violation, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3129A1.html
      • the equipment has been installed and the EAS is working. Finally, Faith Mountain requests cancellation of the forfeiture because of its inability to pay, and provides certain financial information in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Faith Mountain's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3139A1.html
      • is ``financially struggling'' and requests reconsideration of the proposed forfeiture amount. In addition, Beacon states that it has discharged the former general manager, and that it is attempting to comply with all FCC rules. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Beacon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3174A1.html
      • its purported inability to pay that amount and provides as supporting documentation its tax returns for the most recent three-year period along with audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Bestov Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3218A1.html
      • limits. 17. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Americom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the RFR MPE limits for the general public and failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing areas that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. 18. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')15 does not specify a maximum base forfeiture for violation of the RFR MPE limits described in Section 1.1310.16 However, the Commission recently determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules.17 19. In assessing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3239A1.html
      • contends that imposition of all or part of the forfeiture would cause a severe financial hardship. In support of this contention, Rev. Dr. Nicolas submits federal income tax returns for tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000. After reviewing the financial documentation presented, in accord with the discretion provided to us by Section 504(b) of the Act,4 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that reduction of the $10,000 forfeiture to $1,000 is warranted in this case. We have reviewed Rev. Dr. Nicolas's remaining arguments and conclude that they do not support further mitigation or cancellation of the forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 Rev.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3292A1.html
      • the $3,200 forfeiture proposed in the NAL for this violation. However, Truth argues that the $5,600 forfeiture proposed for failure to comply with AM fencing requirements should be substantially reduced, if not eliminated entirely. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Truth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3348A1.html
      • Office, a local police officer observed the WAAA tower at about 1:00 a.m. on October 17, 2002. The police officer reported to the Norfolk Office that the WAAA tower still had no obstruction lighting. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3349A1.html
      • watts. Additionally, McCreary stated that he would like to resolve the monetary forfeiture and offered to let the Commission take possession of his radio apparatus in lieu of payment of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act6 requires that, in examining McCreary's petition, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-336A1.html
      • factors exist beyond those already considered in the NAL for further reducing the amount of the forfeiture. Based on the totality of the information before us, we conclude that a forfeiture in the total amount of $5,500 is appropriate.10 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 47 U.S.C. 503(b) and Section 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, that Northeast Utilities IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. 1.17. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that payment of this forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. 1.80 within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3390A1.html
      • for WIPC to Siber was consummated on April 30, 2002. Therefore, it appears that Seggi was no longer the owner of WIPC or the two antenna structures at the time the violations referenced in the NAL occurred. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the June 20, 2002 Notice of Apparent Liability issued to Seggi Broadcasting of Florida, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Seggi Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., 2000 Universal Studios, Suite 604, Orlando, Florida 32819. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3403A1.html
      • Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000.2 Manuel M. Vzquez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, (``Rules'')4 Manuel M. Vzquez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules 5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3404A1.html
      • City Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000.2 Deans Cablevision has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Deans Cablevision IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules 5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3405A1.html
      • Los Angeles, California Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')3 in the amount of $15,000. El Dorado has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 El Dorado IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for willfully violating Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47(a), 17.48(a), 17.56, and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3407A1.html
      • on the information before us. Mr. Bushman filed a petition for reconsideration on September 3, 2002. 3. We have reviewed the additional facts set forth in Mr. Bushman's petition and conclude that, under principles of equity and fairness, rescission of the $7,000 forfeiture is warranted. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $7,000 forfeiture issued to Mr. Sam Bushman IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,4 Mr. Bushman's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to counsel for Mr. Sam Bushman, Barry D. Wood, Esq., Wood,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3448A1.html
      • of being the licensee of Station WJFD(FM). While this does not excuse a violation, this factor is mitigating when we determine an appropriate forfeiture amount. 15. Thus, we find that on four different dates Edmund Dinis apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3488A1.html
      • Mr. Sarmiento asserts that mitigation of the forfeiture is warranted because he has been forthcoming by having initiated written contact with the FCC, has applied for an LPFM license, and has demonstrated a respect for local, state and federal laws. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Sarmiento's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3555A1.html
      • the dates on these responses demonstrate the timeliness of the responses. Finally, BanJo notes that this is the first and only time it has been found to be in violation of the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining BanJo's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3556A1.html
      • violation. However, Alpha asserts that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture and submits tax returns for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and a balance sheet for 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Alpha's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3566A1.html
      • We noted in the Forfeiture Order that Mr. Brothers had not filed a response to the NAL, and affirmed the Forfeiture Order based on the information before us. On July 3, 2002, Mr. Brothers filed what he styled as a ``response'' to the NAL, which we are treating as a petition for reconsideration of our Forfeiture Order pursuant to Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). 4 3. In his petition for reconsideration, Mr. Brothers does not dispute that he willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. However, he asks that we cancel the $10,000 forfeiture because of, among other things, his inability to pay. The financial documentation that he provides demonstrates his inability to pay and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3591A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, City Page & Cellular Services, Inc. d/b/a/ City Beepers is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3592A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.13 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Gabriel Wireless LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3593A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.13 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Golden Arrow Paging, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3594A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.14 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, SelectPath Holding, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3595A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Telephone & Two-Way Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3596A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, UHF - DE, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3597A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.16 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Wharton Telecom Holdings, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3601A1.html
      • Sections 1.89(b) and 11.35(a) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Patrick's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby GRANTED to the extent noted herein. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(i) of the Rules,7 the forfeiture in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) issued to Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd. IS CANCELLED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Patrick IS ADMONISHED for its failure to respond to Commission correspondence and for its failure to install EAS equipment at Station KTRY-FM in willful violation of Sections 1.89(b) and 11.35(a) of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-373A1.html
      • (``Miami Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Electronics Unlimited for the noted violations.3 Electronics Unlimited has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Electronics Unlimited, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for marketing a non-compliant high-power cordless telephone in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-383A1.html
      • the Commission's Miami, Florida, Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 to Lightning for the noted violations.3 Lightning has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Lightning IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-453A1.html
      • Bureau in this matter. Alternatively, NIE claims that it would be an extreme financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture proposed in light of its small profit margin over the last three years. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining NIE's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-574A1.html
      • a $4,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to National Cable for the noted violation.2 National Cable has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 National Cable IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-585A1.html
      • licensees are responsible for their agents' acts and omissions.4 Turning to WHNY(AM)'s claim of remedial action, we cite to another well-established FCC position: remedial action, although commendable, will not nullify a forfeiture penalty.5 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 C.W.H. Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,500 for willfully violating Sections 17.4(a)(2), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.808 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-622A1.html
      • the rule includes any word or words spoken during the call. Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006 (1975). The licensee does not dispute that it did not give any notice to the complainant before WWDC-FM broadcast the complainant's voice mail greeting. Hence, we find apparent liability. 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-677A1.html
      • that the complained of material was broadcast when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. By broadcasting this material on three separate occasions - on March 6, 2001, March 7, 2001, and May 17, 2001- WKQX(FM) apparently violated the prohibitions against broadcast indecency. 15. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-717A1.html
      • that the violation was willful or repeated; that the violation was immediately corrected upon being brought to its attention; and that it has an overall history of compliance and showed good faith by voluntary disclosing information to the Enforcement Bureau. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 506(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KYS's response, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules requires that the Commission take into account certain downward adjustment criteria, including minor violation, good
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-722A1.html
      • of his Government of Puerto Rico income tax returns for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and documents indicating that he is unemployed. Rodriguez also argues that his violations are mitigated by his remedial action and his status as a first offender. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Rodriguez's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-729A1.html
      • of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988). 7. In this case, we find that Clear Channel apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting Mr. Shell's conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 8. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules,5 each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-730A1.html
      • find that it is irrelevant whether the individuals requested to view specific documents from the public inspection file or whether they simply asked to see the public inspection file. M&R's failure to provide access to its public inspection file upon request is a violation of the Commission's rules. 8. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-878A1.html
      • CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,11 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,12 Eure Family Limited Partnership's petition for reconsideration of the December 5, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $8,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.13 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-882A1.html
      • the monetary forfeiture for this violation. 9. In conclusion, after subtracting $3,000 for the Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules violation that we are dismissing in this Order, we find Willis Broadcasting liable for a $22,000 forfeiture. IV. Ordering Clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),16 and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules,17 Willis Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other respects. 11. Payment of the $22,000 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules,18 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-912A1.html
      • is required or that New World violated the rule. New World does not dispute the EAS violation. Therefore, New World contends that the forfeiture amount attributable to the Section 73.1400 violation should be rescinded. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining New World's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-935A1.html
      • compliance with the Commission's rules.5 Florida Power contends that in this case, its tower was not dark. Rather, Florida Power states that the tower was lit so that aircraft could see it after sunset. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Florida Power's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-936A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) to Patrick for the noted violations.2 Patrick has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) for failing to respond to Commission correspondence, failing to install and operate EAS equipment, and failing to maintain a public inspection file in willful violation of Sections 1.89(b), 11.35(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-937A1.html
      • and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''17 11. Excessive cable television signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies.18 Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')19 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for violations of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000 per violation. Application of the base amount to the captioned Charter subsidiaries' violations results in a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 for each. The total base forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-938A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''12 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')13 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form when there is a change in the antenna structure ownership information) is $3,000.15 The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-968A1.html
      • on three separate occasions without Commission authorization, as described above. We have further determined that BroadStreet is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $5000 for each of the violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $15,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and authority delegated by section 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.311, that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 214(a) of the Act20 and sections 63.61, 63.63, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-986A1.html
      • Commission's Detroit, Michigan Field Office issued a $17,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Central Transport for the noted violations.3 Central Transport has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Central Transport IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully violating Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-996A1.html
      • after 8:15 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, and thus is legally actionable. For these reasons, we find that on April 6, 2001, WAZX-AM and WAZX-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. 13. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240879A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240880A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240913A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240923A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240929A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240934A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240937A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240950A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240953A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240954A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240957A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240958A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240972A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240973A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240974A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240975A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240976A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241002A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241003A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241004A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241007A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241011A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241012A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241013A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241014A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241017A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241020A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241021A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241023A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241024A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241026A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241034A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241035A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241040A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241042A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241043A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241044A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241045A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241046A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241047A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241048A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241050A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241053A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241054A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241056A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241059A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241060A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241064A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241065A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241066A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241067A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241068A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241069A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241070A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241071A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241072A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241073A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241074A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241102A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241110A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241111A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241113A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241114A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241115A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241116A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241117A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241118A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241144A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241146A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241147A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241150A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241151A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241152A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241161A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241162A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241163A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241166A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241167A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241168A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241169A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241170A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241171A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241172A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241173A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241174A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241175A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241176A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241177A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241178A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241179A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241180A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241181A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241182A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241183A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241184A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241185A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241186A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241187A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241188A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241205A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241230A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241316A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241319A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-01-TC-056.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-01-TC-056.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-034.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-034.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-034.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-036.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-036.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-048.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-048.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-048.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-061.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-061.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-062.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-062.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-062.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-064.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-064.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-064.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-065.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-065.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-065.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-069.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-069.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-070.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-070.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-070.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-072.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-072.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-073.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-073.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-118.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-118.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-122.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-122.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-122.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-127.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-127.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-127.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-129.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-129.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-131.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-131.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-131.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-132.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-132.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-132.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-133.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-133.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-133.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-134.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-134.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-134.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-137.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-137.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-137.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-139.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-139.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-139.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-254.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-254.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-254.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-255.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-255.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-255.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-256.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-256.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-256.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-257.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-257.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-257.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-258.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-258.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-258.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-259.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-259.pdf
      • Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 The Telecommunications Consumers Division has obtained information which indicates that Newgen Results Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of TeleTech Holdings, Inc. 2 47 U.S.C. 227; 47 C.F.R. 64.1200. 3 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e). 4 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 5 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-259.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-260.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-260.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-260.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-261.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-261.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-264.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-264.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-264.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-265.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-265.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-265.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-266.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-266.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-266.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-267.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-267.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-273.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-273.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-273.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-383A1.html
      • no basis for granting Brockway's application for review. See generally 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(5). 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules,6 Brockway's application for review of the MO&O released on July 6, 2001, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the seventeen thousand dollar ($17,000) monetary forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-112A1.html
      • act or failure to act.61 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''62 23. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information.63 As noted in the NAL, however, the circumstances of this case justify a substantial increase to this base amount pursuant to upward adjustment criteria contained in the rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.64 Specifically, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-124A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')19 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-125A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),22 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,23 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-12A1.html
      • of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 200132080019/MG IS HEREBY DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Opposition to Citicasters' petition for reconsideration, filed September 6, 2001 by Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc., IS HEREBY DISMISSED, and Citicasters' reply to this opposition IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules9 within 30 days of the date of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-142A1.html
      • of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''59 23. Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular circumstances of this case, we find that AT&T Wireless is apparently liable for an aggregate forfeiture in the amount of $2.2 million for its apparent violations of Sections 1.65, 20.18(g)(1)(i) and 20.18(g)(2) of the Rules. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $3,000 for violations of Section 1.65.60 The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase in the base amount for a Section 1.65 violation under the upward adjustment criteria contained in Section 1.80 and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.61 First, AT&T Wireless's conduct here
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-183A1.html
      • in the amount of $40,000 for each of 20 apparent violations. WebNet's apparent intentional and egregious misconduct represents a gross dereliction of its verification obligations; accordingly, we propose increasing the forfeiture by 50%, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $1,200,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that WebNet Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,200,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-213A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''13 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')14 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,15 the base forfeiture amounts for the listed violations are: $4,000 for operation of a radio station at an unauthorized location;16 $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements;17 $8,000 for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational;18 $7,000 for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-226A1.html
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 489 unsolicited advertisements identified in Table 1 and discussed above. We have further determined that Fax.com is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $5,379,000. 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Fax.com, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $5,379,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. 29. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-258A1.html
      • that an $80,000 forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 64 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of $5,120,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, One Call Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,120,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), 64.703(a)(4). The amount
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-259A1.html
      • forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 18 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), 226(b)(1)(B), and 226(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of $1,440,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, ASC Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,440,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
      • refusal to offer shared transport for intraLATA traffic. 16. For all of the reasons we have discussed above, we find that SBC's conduct justifies the forfeiture amount that we proposed in the NAL. We therefore affirm the $6,000,000 forfeiture amount originally proposed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,72 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,73 SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-293A1.html
      • on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise in willful violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, Section 1.115(g) of the Rules,18 Eure Family Limited Partnership's application for review IS DENIED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.19 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-294A1.html
      • the instances cited in the NAL and requests that the Commission reduce the total base forfeiture amount to $6,500. AT&T Wireless also argues that the Commission's decision in the NAL to triple the aggregate base forfeiture amount was unwarranted. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,13 Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining AT&T Wireless's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-2A1.html
      • the forfeiture proposed in the NAL. We therefore issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 against 21st Century Fax(es) Limited for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders.27 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Limited IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-300A1.html
      • 19, 2001, the Commission released the referenced NAL against Callais in the amount of $133,000. Callais filed its response to the NAL on March 5, 2001, requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 12. The Commission assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),21 Section 1.80 of the Rules,22 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act23 requires that, in examining Callais's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-312A1.html
      • consumer-grade portable receiver to tune into the station does not meet the transmission system monitoring and control requirements of Section 73.1400. Based on the evidence, we further find that A-O apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1400 of the Rules by failing to have adequate transmission system monitoring and control. 22. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')28 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits for transmitting tower antennas in Section 1.1310.29 However, the FCC has set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for failure to comply with other public safety related rules, such as prescribed antenna structure lighting
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-319A1.html
      • 73.3540 of the Commission's rules (application for voluntary assignment of control),3 by transferring control of Station WMGA(AM) to Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. (``DBI''), Aubrey Smith (``Smith''), and Sam and Gracie Zamarron (``the Zamarrons'') without prior authorization of the Commission; and for its willful and repeated failure to respond to official Commission correspondence ordering it to respond. 2. Also, pursuant to Section 1.80(g) of the Commission's rules,4 this Order constitutes notice of opportunity for hearing to determine whether, in addition to or as an alternative to license revocation and/or cease and desist order, monetary forfeitures should be imposed against RMI for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules. II. Background 3. The licensee of record for Station WMGA(AM) is RMI. However, we
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-31A1.html
      • amount.15 Moreover, in view of the intentional nature of Peninsula's current violations, we do not find that Peninsula's past broadcast record warrants a downward adjustment. Accordingly, we find that the proposed $140,000 forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, Peninsula Communications, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) for violating Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 301, by operating the seven captioned translator stations subsequent to midnight May 19, 2001. 10. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-61A1.html
      • 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b), the Application for Review filed by SBC Communications Inc. IS GRANTED as to its request for a modification of the forfeiture amount and IS DENIED in all other respects. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, SBC Communications Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty- four thousand dollars ($84,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules and orders requiring ILECs promptly to post on the ILEC's Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-7A1.html
      • ability to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture so that forfeitures against ``large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business.''52 These factors together persuade us that we should propose the statutory maximum forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,53 and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,54 SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-93A1.html
      • Commission: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny an application for review filed by KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. (``KASA Radio''), licensee of Radio Station KDAP(AM), of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O")1 issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),2 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"), the Enforcement Bureau found KASA Radio liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 73.54(d) (failure to provide a copy of the station's antenna resistance and reactance measurements during an inspection); 73.1350(c)(1) (failure to have the proper monitoring equipment installed at the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc004.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc004.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc005.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc005.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc005.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc006.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc006.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc008.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc008.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc008.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc009.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc009.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/fcc02002.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/fcc02002.pdf
      • the forfeiture proposed in the NAL. We therefore issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 against 21st Century Fax(es) Limited for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders.27 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Limited IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1011A1.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),10 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,11 Concilio's petition for reconsideration of the October 3, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $15,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.12 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1033A1.html
      • operate the station at daytime power 24 hours per day and that he thought that the station had been identifying by call sign. Finally, Monroe indicates that all of the violations have been corrected. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Monroe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1051A1.html
      • pursuant to Section 405 of the Act7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 Mr. Muoz's petition for reconsideration of the October 24, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the monetary forfeiture IS REDUCED to $2,000 and IS DENIED in all other respects. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1052A1.html
      • Cornbelt must submit the report described in Paragraph 7, above, no more than thirty (30) days prior to resuming broadcasting, to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7-A820, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.8 If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1085A1.html
      • good visibility of the tower in violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules. Accordingly, we cancel the NAL. Because we are canceling the NAL, we need not address the other arguments raised by Pinnacle in its response. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700016, issued to Pinnacle Towers, Inc. IS CANCELED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Pinnacle Towers, Inc., 301 N. Cattlemen Road, 3rd Floor, Sarasota, Florida 34232, and to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1086A1.html
      • However, Adelphia states that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 25, 2002, and requests relief from the $2,000 forfeiture proposed in the NAL in light of the financial hardship it now faces. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Adelphia's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1270A1.html
      • base was unlocked and the gate itself was open. Anastos Media, instead, surmises that an unknown third-party cut the lock and requests that we reduce or cancel the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 5. The Buffalo Office Resident Agent assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,3 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Anastos Media's response and supplemental response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1271A1.html
      • a small market AM station using a Spanish news and talk format to provide ``an important new radio service,'' and that the proposed forfeiture amount would result in a financial burden for the station. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Gold Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1366A1.html
      • is not rescinded, the forfeiture should be reduced because the violation was minor, it displayed good faith after being informed of the violation, and it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Morris's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1435A1.html
      • and to register its antenna structure. Finally, Simes asserts that it cannot afford to pay the forfeiture and provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Simes's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1459A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Assondieu Fortune.2 Mr. Fortune has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Assondieu Fortune IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1479A1.html
      • during which Smith operated without the defective equipment, December 30, 2001 through February 13, 2002, did not exceed the number of days permitted it to do so by the Rule. Thus, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled.4 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,5 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 the NAL issued to Smith Broadcasting of Santa Barbara, LP IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Smith Broadcasting of Santa Barbara, LP, 730 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93102. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1504A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ebanks.2 Mr. Ebanks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Omar A. Ebanks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1505A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $12,000 to Mr. Kamm.2 Mr. Kamm has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Scott E. Kamm IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1513A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles.2 Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Rawlins Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1514A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to J Transport.2 J Transport has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 J Transport, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1519A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $13,000 to Minority Business.2 Minority Business has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Minority Business and Housing Development, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1535A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alejandro.2 Mr. Alejandro has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Fernando Alejandro IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1536A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Frederic.2 Mr. Frederic has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Emmanuel Frederic IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1549A1.html
      • In support of this assertion, Mr. Hood submits his tax returns for 2000 and 2001 and notes that he is selling the station for substantially less than he paid for it two years ago.5 III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Lighthouse's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1550A1.html
      • and reporting equipment. Finally, Mortenson argues that no harm resulted from the lights being out for one day and that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules supports cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mortenson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1551A1.html
      • Commission's rules. In addition, Tri- County maintains that payment of the proposed forfeiture will impose a hardship on it and provides its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Tri-County's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1556A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mexicana.2 Mexicana has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mexicana Car and Limousine Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1568A1.html
      • forfeiture under an installment plan. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.106(j) of the Rules,7 the petition for reconsideration filed on January 22, 2003 by Alpha Ambulance, Inc. IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1683A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Pamal.2 Pamal has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Pamal Broadcasting, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 17.57 of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-168A1.html
      • outage and then promptly installed a new fail-safe strobe ``flash head'' and related failure detector which will afford automatic notification in the event of a bulb failure as well as a basic power failure. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining SCCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1713A1.html
      • tower base, but FCC personnel could not see it from outside the fence, the second involved a case where the tower was voluntarily registered, and Titan has no record of receiving the third NOV. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Titan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1726A1.html
      • the requirements of Section 17.48 of the Rules by promptly reporting the obstruction light outage to the Miami FSS, so that the FSS could open a NOTAM. We therefore find that cancellation of the NAL is warranted. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 the Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700023, issued to Florida Cellular Service, LLC. IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Florida Cellular Service, LLC, 17330 Preston Road, Suite 100A, Dallas, Texas 75252, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1727A1.html
      • posted the ASR number as required, but that a contractor working for BellSouth bulldozed the ASR number sign during construction of a new BellSouth fiber system. Under these circumstances, we find that cancellation of the proposed $2,000 forfeiture is appropriate.4 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,5 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 the NAL IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall by sent by first class and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Chuck Moffatt, Moffatt Properties Leasing LLC, 1960 McCullough Boulevard, Tupelo, Mississippi 38801. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 17.4(g). 2 ASR
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1860A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Ashley.2 Ashley has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 John W. Ashley d/b/a Ashley Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1880A1.html
      • forfeiture is cancelled or substantially reduced. WPGS also provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of its claim that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining WPGS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1910A1.html
      • is a very small percentage of its gross revenues. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 Mount Rushmore's petition for reconsideration of the October 29, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules8 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1940A1.html
      • Roser asserts, is ``spotless.'' Finally, Roser argues that the imposition of an $11,000 monetary forfeiture would ``severely damage'' it and that it would be forced to consider terminating one or more of its employees. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Roser's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2032A1.html
      • marine coast station on VHF Marine Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) in violation of Section 301 of the Act. On July 8, 2002, Amethyst filed a response to the NAL in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Amethyst's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2068A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Bloom.2 Mr. Bloom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Brian N. Bloom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2079A1.html
      • because it took swift actions to correct the violations in both instances. Alltel contends that the previous contractor that it hired after receipt of the NOV in 2001 used substandard materials and ``victimized'' Alltel. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Alltel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2086A1.html
      • a hazard to air navigation. Finally, St. Louis Mobile claims that it is unable to pay the proposed $3,000 forfeiture and provides balance sheets for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this claim. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining St. Louis Mobile's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2126A1.html
      • to the single lighting malfunction'' and ``implementing a swift remedy'' and by its having ``not experienced a similar equipment failure or been the subject of a violation of Commission Rules pertaining to tower lighting.'' III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining VoiceStream's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2140A1.html
      • other defects that would require repainting under Section 17.50 of the Rules or the Advisory Circular. Finally, Midwest cites its history of overall compliance in requesting a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Midwest's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-217A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Verizon Wireless.2 Verizon Wireless has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-218A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mediacom.2 Mediacom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mediacom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-219A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Tralyn.2 Tralyn has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Tralyn Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-220A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to North American.2 North American has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 North American Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-221A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to Qwest.2 Qwest has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Qwest Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(g) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-222A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Metro Birch.2 Metro Birch has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Metro Birch IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2232A1.html
      • level on May 8, 2002. The Atlanta Office issued the subject NAL on June 24, 2002 to Atlantic Beach Radio for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and operating with excessive power. III. Discussion 7. The District Director assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Atlantic Beach Radio's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2253A1.html
      • does not own WDNT's antenna structure and did not own it at the time of the alleged violation.4 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Brewer's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED; and that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act7 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 the $3,000 monetary forfeiture issued to Brewer IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to J.L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC, 1305 Carter Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2342A1.html
      • this violation. Finally, Rotijefco asserts that payment of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on it and submits its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Rotijefco's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2360A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Southern.2 Southern has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Southern IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2366A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Air Paging.2 Air Paging has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Air Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2367A1.html
      • during the inspection, the agent only mentioned the fence ``in passing'' and never inquired again about the fence or returned to the station to reinspect the fence. For these reasons, the licensee contends that the forfeiture should be rescinded or reduced. III. DISCUSSION 6.The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining WOYK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2369A1.html
      • Diego office traveled to Escondido, California, to determine whether station KSKT-CA has a main studio at 2230 Micro Place. On both occasions, the agents found that there is no main studio at that location. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Blue Skies's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2371A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Brown.2 Mr. Brown has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Mr. Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2589A1.html
      • transmitter was observed by the agent. Rev. Louis concludes that the Commission never found a ``good functioning radio transmitter'' at the church, and that he did not violate Section 301 of the Act. III. DISCUSSION 12. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Rev. Louis's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2591A1.html
      • calls will not be broadcast without the consent of the parties involved.''5 In this case, we find that Infinity apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording and broadcasting Ms. Tanner's conversation without giving her prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 5. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules,7 each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2614A1.html
      • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures he has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Mr. Autry's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Billy R. Autry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $11,000 for willfully violating Section 73.49 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1745 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2615A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this Order demonstrating that it has filed an antenna structure registration application. Best Country's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Best Country.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Best Country Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2616A1.html
      • has hired another engineer to file Forms 301 and 302 with the Commission and is notifying the Federal Aviation Administration of the new coordinates.4 For these reasons, O'Quinn requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining O'Quinn's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2620A1.html
      • NAL is inconsistent with several recent forfeiture orders issued with respect to Section 17.50 painting violations. For all of these reasons, Pinnacle requests that the proposed forfeiture be eliminated or substantially reduced. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Pinnacle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2645A1.html
      • able to manage his own funds. The evaluation did not state that Mr. Kluz was unable to willfully violate Section 95.411, or that Mr. Kluz was unable to know the actions he takes. III. DISCUSSION 14. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Kluz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2661A1.html
      • he has a history of overall compliance. Finally, Mr. Joseph asserts that payment of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on him and submits financial information for 1999, 2000, and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Joseph's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2663A1.html
      • of FM broadcast transmitters. 2. After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to support a finding that Networx operated the FM broadcast transmitters at the location specified by the NAL in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act2 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the proposed $10,000 monetary forfeiture against Networx IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Networx Corporation, 1 Fishers Road, Pittsford, New York 14534, and to its counsel, Timothy K. Brady, Esquire, P.O. Box 71309, Newnan, Georgia 30271.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2664A1.html
      • AFA concludes that the NAL should be canceled on the basis of its history of overall compliance and because the proposed forfeiture amount is disproportionately punitive given Station KAUF's annual revenue. III. DISCUSSION 7. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining AFA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-267A1.html
      • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to International.2 International has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (''Rules''),4 International Car Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-268A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Walker.2 Mr. Walker has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Ian R. Walker IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-269A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alusma.2 Mr. Alusma has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Josue Alusma IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-270A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Coffee County.2 Coffee County has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Coffee County IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2719A1.html
      • ``Opticom,'' and ``One Call.'' The Commission will address the NAL as it relates to OCMC, Inc. in a separate order. Nothing herein constitutes a decision with respect to OCMC, Inc. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b),5 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,6 and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311,7 that the Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Apparent Liability with regard to One Call Internet, Inc. IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-271A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Brewer.2 Brewer has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4J.L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2722A1.html
      • Riordan, which, as noted supra, concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Star and Northeast intended to violate the anti- collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. 23. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Star may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Star's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2723A1.html
      • noted supra, the August 29 conversation concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Northeast and Star intended to violate the anti-collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. 23. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Northeast may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Northeast's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2741A1.html
      • what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Air Paging's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Air Paging.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Air Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.903(a), 90.403(f) and 90.425(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2742A1.html
      • the stations and provides the stations' tax returns for 1998 through 2001 in support of this claim. Ms. Suh accordingly requests that the forfeiture be canceled or reduced to no more than $3,000. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Suh's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2780A1.html
      • it acted in ``good faith'' by quickly correcting the deficiencies,3 that it has ``an exemplary record of compliance'' and that payment of the full forfeiture amount would be ``a difficult burden'' for Calvary. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Calvary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2824A1.html
      • Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Sections 1.106 of the Rules,6 Ho'ona'auao Community Television, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the February 4, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the $4,000 monetary forfeiture IS REDUCED to $2,000. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-282A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to WHYZ.2 WHYZ has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 WHYZ Radio, L.P. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2853A1.html
      • determined that WCSS apparently committed a willful and repeated violation of a Commission order by failing to provide information and documents directed by the Bureau. We have further determined that WCSS is apparently liable in the amount of $10,000. 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. (``WCSS'') IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $ 10,000 for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order as described in the paragraphs above.27
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2888A1.html
      • to allow the agents to inspect his station. In addition, Mr. Woods submitted financial documentation concerning his inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture and also stated that he had taken medication before the agents arrived at his house. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Woods' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2889A1.html
      • on the basis of a telegram from the FCC (received by the previous licensee of WANA), that WANA's tower was not required to be registered because it has no marking or lighting requirements.4 III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Lankford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2900A1.html
      • and took prompt remedial action following the inspection. Clarke also argues that it is ``a small, privately owned company and the amount of the forfeiture is significant to an operator of Clarke's size.'' III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Clarke's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3019A1.html
      • Mount Rushmore must submit the report described in Paragraph 8, no more than thirty (30) after release of this order, to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7-A820, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules12 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.13 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3061A1.html
      • of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent violation, we believe it appropriate that Tempe be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation14 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that the base amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be the appropriate proposed forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3147A1.html
      • Colorado Broadcasters Association, and had an FCC Regulatory Compliance Certification. Finally, Commonwealth asserts that the proposed forfeiture amount issued to its ``small market station'' will play a determining factor in its future financial existence. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Commonwealth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3159A1.html
      • forfeiture, arguing that its attempts to register the tower and a history of overall compliance mitigate the violations. Sutro also contends that, if a forfeiture is imposed, it should be no more than $500. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Sutro's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3179A1.html
      • a new No Hazard determination on the basis of a tower height of 202 feet. The new No Hazard determination indicates that no painting or lighting is now required for FBS's antenna structure. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining FBS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3180A1.html
      • that Nextmedia did not willfully violate either Section 17.47(a)(1) or 17.48(a). We also conclude that, based on Nextmedia's good faith efforts to comply and its history of overall compliance, no forfeiture should be imposed for its violation of Section 17.51(a). 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,3 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the NAL issued to Nextmedia Operating, Inc. on August 28, 2002 IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail to Nextmedia Operating, Inc., 6312 Fiddlers Green Circle, Englewood, Colorado 80111. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3200A1.html
      • antenna structure). 3. Hill Country filed its response to the NAL on October 17, 2002.4 In response to the NAL, Hill Country seeks a reduction of the forfeiture based upon ``its history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules.''5 II. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Hill Country's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3236A1.html
      • maintain an effective locked fence or other enclosure around the base of its antenna tower in willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. In its response, Cumulus requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Cumulus's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3274A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Suwannee Cable TV.2 Suwannee Cable TV has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Suwannee Cable TV IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3276A1.html
      • financial constraints.'' Finally, ``[b]y way of mitigation,'' Max Media explained that the delay in replacing the top high intensity light was due to a malfunctioning automatic alarm system, which Continental had warranted to be in compliance with FCC requirements.12 III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,13 Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Max Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-330A1.html
      • filed with the Commission on August 16, 2002, and was granted on the same day. Haviland requests that the Commission take into consideration its immediate actions once it became aware of the ``regulatory irregularity.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Haviland's response, and supplement thereto, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3314A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Green.2 Mr. Green has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Patrick S. Green IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-331A1.html
      • KYLZ-FM1 was an isolated incident and that the station caused no interference during the brief period of the violation. Finally, AGM asserts that it has an overall record of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AGM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3320A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Davies' report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Davies Communications Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-332A1.html
      • that it has taken measures to ensure that the violation does not recur. Finally, MariTEL asserts that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules warrants reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining MariTEL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3339A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Chatterbox's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Chatterbox, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-336A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Ho'ona'auao.2 Ho'ona'auao has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Ho'ona'auao Community Television, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-337A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles.2 Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Marcel Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3408A1.html
      • which it subsequently reported to the local police, and requested that the Commission consider reducing the forfeiture as a result. Valley provided no other information in its response regarding the signal leakage. III. DISCUSSION 7. The Commission assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),14 Section 1.80 of the Rules,15 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Valley's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3410A1.html
      • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violation and ensure that it does not recur. Radio Centre's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Radio Centre, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3412A1.html
      • forfeiture, without the aforementioned process, is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. 14. Finally, Access.1 argues that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced based on its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 15. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Access.1's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3429A1.html
      • submits tax returns from 1999 - 2000. Despite requesting additional time to produce documentation in support of its request for cancellation of the proposed fine, J & W has produced no such documentation. III DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining J & W's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-342A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to Small Town.2 Small Town has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Small Town Radio Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3431A1.html
      • violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice requires. Under the circumstances, we believe a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) is apparently warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 15 Pacifica Broadcasting Company is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) for its willful and repeated violation of section 301 of the Act and section 73.1690 of the Commission's rules.16 9. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules that within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3513A1.html
      • remain a Commission licensee and thus whether its captioned broadcast license should be revoked.5 3. The OSC also ordered the Presiding Judge, notwithstanding the resolution of the designated issues, to determine whether the Commission should impose a monetary forfeiture against RMI for having willfully and repeatedly violated numerous statutory and regulatory provisions administered by the Commission.6 In accordance with Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,7 the OSC set the maximum forfeiture amount at $300,000.8 4. The OSC ordered RMI, pursuant to Section 1.91(c) of the Commission's rules,9 within thirty days of its receipt of the OSC (i.e., by December 26, 2002), to file a written notice of appearance in order to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard.10 The OSC
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3538A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 Deans Cablevision's petition for reconsideration of the December 12, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $10,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules 8 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3540A1.html
      • Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Lovelock.2 Lovelock has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission Rules (``Rules''),4 Annetta Lovelock Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Rum Runner Caribbean Restaurant & Lounge IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3544A1.html
      • under the Act.20 In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')22 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,23 the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Accordingly, we are proposing a forfeiture in the amount of $7,000. We caution Johannus that any subsequent importing and marketing of non-compliant digital electronic organs will result in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-354A1.html
      • Commission's Tampa, Florida, Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Accessory.2 Accessory has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (''Rules''),4 Accessory Connection Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully violating Sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-355A1.html
      • J4 Broadcasting does not dispute that it violated these rules. However, J4 Broadcasting requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture and submits its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this request. III. DISCUSSION 11. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining J4 Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3564A1.html
      • X requests substantial reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture citing the immediate measures it took to correct the violations noted in the NAL. The response is also accompanied by financial statements. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Radio X's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-356A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Piedmont.2 Piedmont has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Piedmont Radio Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 17.4(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-361A1.html
      • had acquired USA Mobile prior to the September 15, 2000 reporting deadline through an assignment of license, and USA Mobile no longer existed prior to September 15, 2000. After considering Arch's response and reviewing the record, we find that the proposed monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the NAL issued to USA Mobile Communications, Inc. II IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Arch Wireless, Inc., 1800 West Park Drive, Suite 250, Westborough, MA 01581 and to its counsel, L. Charles Keller, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-362A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to P & G.2 P & G has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 P & G Properties, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3638A1.html
      • $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules.38 Based upon our review of all the pertinent factors as required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,39 Isothermal Community College is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Isothermal Community
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-363A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Marshall County.2 Marshall County has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Marshall County Radio Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3654A1.html
      • work on tower registration for Bay Minette and Atmore, other consulting/ repair visit time to date.'' SMC also provides a letter dated September 4, 2002, certifying that the EAS equipment has been repaired. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining SMC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3660A1.html
      • contended that if a forfeiture is warranted, it should be reduced, citing cases in which the Commission issued forfeitures in lesser amounts for unlicensed operation, or reduced forfeitures issued to licensees based on the short period of unlicensed operation.4 III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').7 In examining Gateway's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3785A1.html
      • violator is a broadcast station licensee.40 In determining the appropriate amount, we consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,41 including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''42 13. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules43 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $10,000 for violation of public file rules. As detailed above, it appears that M-H, on two different dates, did not make its public file available for inspection when requested to do so, contrary to section 73.3526(c) of the Commission's rules.44 Offsetting these apparent violations is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3819A1.html
      • Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcast Stations, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911 (1982), recon., 97 FCC 2d 255 (1984). 20 See, e.g. In the Matter of Rego, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 16795, 16797 (EB 2001), citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970). 21 See WTTW, supra. 22 Id. 23 See Note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3819A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3819A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3851A1.html
      • to expedite the painting.3 Finally, Barinowski states that it believed that the antenna structure was not in violation and that the painting, which occurred on October 4, 2002, prevented a future violation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Barinowski's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3864A1.html
      • at 4. 16 See Xavier, 5 FCC Rcd 4920. 17 See id. 18 See Public Notice, 7 FCC Rcd 827. 19 47 U.S.C. 399b and 47 C.F.R. 73.503. 20 See 2001 Response. 21 See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, 5 FCC Rcd 7212. 22 47 C.F.R. 74.1231(g). 23 See Note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). 24 47 U.S.C. 399b. 25 47 C.F.R. 73.503. 26 47 C.F.R. 74.1231(g). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3887A1.html
      • justice may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,24 and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,25 that ABC, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, ABC, Inc. SHALL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3967A1.html
      • ) NAL/ Acct. No. 200132080012 Licensee of Station KHWK(FM), ) FRN 0010014504 Tonopah, NV ) Facility ID No. 17239 ) ) ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: December 15, 2003 Released: December 17, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we impose a monetary forfeiture of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) on Donald W. Kaminski, Jr., licensee of Station KHWK(FM), Tonopah, Nevada, for his willful failure to respond to a written Commission inquiry in violation of section 73.1015 of the Commission's rules.2 II. BACKGROUND The Commission, by the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, acting pursuant to delegated authority, issued
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3969A1.html
      • obstruction marking in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules. Tower Properties filed a response to the NAL on October 21, 2002, and supplemented its response on October 30, 2003. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 Section 1.80 of the Rules,3 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303 (1999). In examining Tower Properties' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4021A1.html
      • from its tower #1216312, and suggests that the agent could have observed the wrong tower. Lastly, Signal states that none of its towers had ever been cited for any violations of Commission rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Signal's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4024A1.html
      • the NAL on October 24, 2002. Hunt's response essentially admits the violations. However, Hunt explains how it has corrected the violations, and seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Hunt's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4026A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4026A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4026A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4032A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4046A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4046A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4046A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4047A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4047A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4047A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4051A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4051A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4051A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4061A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4061A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4061A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4062A1.html
      • Minority Television Project, Inc. (``Minority''), licensee of noncommercial educational television Station KMTP-TV, San Francisco, California, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),1 and section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules.2 We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). We further dismiss Minority's pending June 13, 2000, Request for Declaratory Ruling as moot. II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arose from allegations raised in a Media Bureau (``MB'') proceeding and referred to the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for resolution. In the MB proceeding, Minority submitted a Petition for Declaratory Ruling that sought Commission approval of numerous underwriting announcements that the station
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4064A1.html
      • for violating Sections 73.49 ($7,000), 17.21 ($10,000), and 73.1745(a) ($4,000) of the Rules. HCI filed a response on October 30, 2002 in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining HCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4093A1.html
      • 45 days of its removal. Lake Placid requests the NAL be cancelled under Section 11.35(b) because its EAS equipment was repaired or replaced within the 60 day period authorization in that provision. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Lake Placid's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4114A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-423A1.html
      • Plan Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (``NRUF'') Report that was due on September 15, 2000.2 ATX responded to the NAL and states that it filed the September 15, 2000 NRUF report. After considering ATX's response and reviewing the record, we find that we should cancel the proposed monetary forfeiture.3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the NAL issued to ATX Telecommunications Services, Ltd. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Scott Kellogg, Regulatory Affairs, ATX Telecommunications Services, Ltd., 225 West Ohio, Suite 200, Chicago, Illinois 60610. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 See ATX Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-424A1.html
      • has been issued and the recipient appears to continue to engage in the same rule violation, we are not inclined to rescind or adjust the forfeiture amount even where the recipient has filed for bankruptcy protection.10 Accordingly, we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that North American Telecommunications Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. For collection, the Commission will file a proof of claim at the appropriate time in North American
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-441A1.html
      • persuaded that a reduction of the forfeiture in this case based on AFA's history of compliance is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,9 the petition for reconsideration filed by American Family Association IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.10 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-463A1.html
      • facts and circumstances presented and to issue a forfeiture regardless of whether or not there is a bankruptcy.10 Thus, a carrier's bankruptcy will not preclude scrutiny of its compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules, and we will take enforcement action where appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b), and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the Notice of Apparent Liability issued to Net-Tel Corporation IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Trustee Wendel W. Webster, c/o Linda Correia, Esq., Webster, Fredrickson & Brackshaw, 1819 H Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-469A1.html
      • that the lyrics of ``Your Revolution,'' measured by contemporary community standards, are not patently offensive and therefore not indecent. Accordingly, we rescind the NAL. 10. In light of our decision rescinding the NAL, we dismiss as moot Sarah Jones's informal request filed October 2, 2002. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's May 17, 2001 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to The KBOO Foundation, licensee of noncommercial Station KBOO-FM, is hereby RESCINDED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, the informal request, filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.41, by Sarah Jones on October 2, 2002,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-579A1.html
      • that a reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted.9 We have reviewed the response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that AWS and Vanguard have justified a reduction of the proposed forfeiture penalty from $9,000 to $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc., FORFEIT to the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-621A1.html
      • authorization, as described above. We have further determined that Arbros is apparently liable in the amount of $5000 for each of the violations of section 214 of the Act and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Arbros Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $50,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 214(a) of the Act30 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 as described
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-691A1.html
      • of the FAA's No Hazard determination issued on March 25, 2002, which specifically requires painting and lighting. In addition, Morgan argues that it did not act willfully and that it ``expeditiously'' corrected the violations.4 III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Morgan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-769A1.html
      • filed by Madison Broadcasting Group, Inc. ("Madison"), former licensee of station WLVA(AM) and former owner of five antenna structures in Lynchburg, Virginia (antenna structure registration numbers 1065920, 1065921, 1065922, 1065923, and 1065924) of the Forfeiture Order1 issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),2 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"),3 the Enforcement Bureau found Madison liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for willful violation of Sections 17.4(g) (failure to post its antenna structure registration numbers) and 17.50 (failure to maintain specified painting on its five antenna structures) of the Rules.4 II. BACKRGOUND 2. On February 28, 2002, a Commission agent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-770A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')3 in the amount of $21,000 to Ramh. Ramh has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Ramh Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1125, 73.1350, and 73.1400 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1560 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-780A1.html
      • that the forfeiture was proposed in error and the NAL must be rescinded because the antenna structure was surrounded by a protective property fence, and therefore was not accessible to the general public. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Wilson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-825A2.html
      • appropriate sanction. If such conduct is considered by the Bureau in determining an appropriate sanction, SBC will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of SBC's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. 18. SBC's decision to enter into this Consent Decree is expressly contingent upon issuance of an Order that is consistent with this Consent Decree, and which adopts the Consent Decree without change, addition or modification. 19. SBC waives any and all rights it may have to seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal or stay, or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-840A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $10,000 to Radio 810. Radio 810 has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Radio 810 IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1215(a), 73.1350(d)(2), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-858A1.html
      • radio equipment at the request of the FCC agents. Finally, Mr. Hyppolite asserts that he is unable to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture and provides financial information in support of his request for reduction of the proposed forfeiture to $2,000. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Hyppolite's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-868A1.html
      • records of the antenna structure's ownership, it promptly took steps to remedy the violation. Finally, East Tennessee submits that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules warrants reduction of the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining East Tennessee's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-869A1.html
      • ``nearing the end of it normal life and would need replacement soon.'' Finally, Needham asserts that, after being informed that the tower was noncompliant, he had it repainted between May 17 and 25, 2002. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Needham's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-870A1.html
      • Chief of the Commission's former Mass Media Bureau (now Media Bureau), rescinded Tidewater's forfeiture for the violation.8 Applying the two downward adjustment criteria to this case (good faith and history of overall compliance),9 we find sufficient reason to cancel Tidewater's $10,000 forfeiture. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules,10 Tidewater's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED and the $10,000 forfeiture is IS CANCELLED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Tidewater Communications, Inc., 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 399, Chesapeake, Virginia, and to its counsel, Gary S. Smithwick,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230319A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230319A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230319A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230468A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230590A1.html
      • established business relationship at the time the call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230590A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230590A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230905A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231108A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231108A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231108A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231326A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231326A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231326A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231533A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231533A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231533A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231691A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232254A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232462A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232799A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232806A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232806A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232806A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233048A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233048A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233048A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233250A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233437A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233437A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233437A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233655A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233655A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233655A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234202A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234315A1.html
      • 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 227; 47 C.F.R. 64.1200. 2 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e). 3 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 4 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234315A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234315A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234693A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234693A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234693A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234850A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235091A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235091A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235091A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235265A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235265A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235265A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235497A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235727A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235727A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235727A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235941A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235941A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235941A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-236317A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-236526A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236526A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236526A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-236857A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236857A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236857A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237113A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237113A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237113A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237311A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237311A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237311A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237312A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237312A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237312A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237313A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237313A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237313A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237314A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237314A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237314A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237315A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237315A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237315A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237333A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237556A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237936A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237936A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237936A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238312A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238312A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238312A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238533A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238872A1.html
      • 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 227; 47 C.F.R. 64.1200. 2 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e). 3 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 4 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238872A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238872A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238960A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239187A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239456A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239620A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239620A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239620A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239875A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-240118A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-240410A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240410A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240410A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-240795A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241089A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241389A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241786A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241846A2.html
      • $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules.38 Based upon our review of all the pertinent factors as required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,39 Isothermal Community College is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Isothermal Community
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-242041A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-242104A1.html
      • citation are to the rules as they existed at the time of the facts at issue here. 2 See attached complaints, IC nos. 03-W6261598, 03-W5946896, 02-N85773. 3 See attached complaint, IC no. 02-N85773 4 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e) (2002). 5 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3)(2002). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242104A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242104A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-242161A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-287216A1.html
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). The phrase "unsolicited advertisement" is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as "any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define "telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/EB-02-TC-268.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/EB-02-TC-268.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-107A1.html
      • conduct is considered by the Commission or its delegated authority in determining an appropriate sanction, Qwest will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of Qwest's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. 16. Qwest waives any rights it may have under any provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504. 17. In the event that this Consent Decree is rendered invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, this Consent Decree shall become null and void and may not be used in any manner in any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-109A1.html
      • forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''56 20. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')57 and Section 1.80 of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for operation at an unauthorized location. However, a significant upward adjustment is justified in this case since Western's violation continued for three and a half years after WTB informed Western that the tower ``may have'' a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-181A1.html
      • application for review filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC of the Enforcement Bureau's October 18, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order for NAL No. 200132260001 IS hereby GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and DENIED in all other respects. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act'')9 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 Radio One Licenses, LLC shall pay the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the above- stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-199A1.html
      • a forfeiture of $283,800. We also admonish Verizon for not accurately and timely posting affiliate transactions on its Internet site in violation of section 272(b)(5) of the Act and section 53.203(e) of the rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 220(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 220(d), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that the Verizon Telephone Companies are hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of two hundred eighty-three thousand, eight hundred dollars ($283,800) for violating section 32.27(c) of the Commission's rules in transactions with its affiliates. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-231A1.html
      • separately, a report, supported by a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury of a corporate officer, stating its plan to come into compliance with the relevant payment and reporting rules discussed here. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 37. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Globcom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $806,861 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-233A1.html
      • 30, 2003 Released: October 2, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant complaints from Reverend Michael G. Taylor and from Catherine P. Henry2 and find that AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC (``AMFM''), licensee of Station WWDC-FM, Washington, DC, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the station during its May 7 and 8, 2002, broadcasts of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-234A1.html
      • 30, 2003 Released: October 2, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,3 we grant, in part, and deny, in part, complaints from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Robert E. Amling4 alleging that, during its broadcast of the ``Opie & Anthony Show'' program on August 15, 2002, over Station WNEW(FM), New York, New York, the station licensee, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. (``Infinity Broadcasting ''), aired
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-258A1.html
      • failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing areas that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. We also find that the four licensees violated our rules by failing to file any Environmental Assessment statements with the Commission although each was required to do so by September 1, 2000.24 16. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')25 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.26 However, we recently determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules.27 17. We propose the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-264A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''26 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')27 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,28 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000 for each violation. The base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000 for each
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-267A1.html
      • to our Do-Not-Call requirements, as described above. We have further determined that AT&T is apparently liable in the amount of $10,000 for each of the violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules, for a total of $780,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that AT&T Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $780,000 for willful or repeated violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A.24 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-299A1.html
      • Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'')7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC of the Commission's July 22, 2003 Memorandum Opinion and Order for NAL No. 200132260001 IS hereby DENIED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act9 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 Radio One Licenses, LLC shall pay the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001, FRN
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-302A1.html
      • this is such a violation.15 B. Future Cases 7. We do not address Infinity's arguments regarding the constitutionality of revocation or imposition of separate forfeitures for multiple violations because we do not impose those sanctions in this case. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-seven thousand five-hundred dollars ($27,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. 9. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-332A1.html
      • cannot now penalize A-O for violation of the RFR rules after having reviewed A-O's RFR analysis; and that the Commission ``articulated no rational basis'' for specifying a $10,000 base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 73.1310 of the Rules. III. Discussion 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,12 Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining A-O's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-43A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.19 However, we think that a substantial proposed forfeiture for this violation is warranted. Violation of the E911 rules is extremely serious because these rules are intended to promote safety of life. The Phase I requirements set forth in Section 20.18(d) have been
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-67A1.html
      • we find that WebNet has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the WebNet NAL. Further, WebNet has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that WebNet Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,200,000 for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions.82 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-71A1.html
      • that children may have been in the audience at the time that the material at issue was broadcast on January 9, 2002 and, therefore, the material broadcast is legally actionable. By broadcasting this material, WKRK-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. 12. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-94A1.html
      • also instruct the Enforcement Bureau to do a follow-up investigation to determine whether Ms. Salazar has come into compliance and, if she has not, to take or recommend further enforcement action as appropriate, including the possibility of initiating a license revocation proceeding. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Ms. Salazar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $39,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(q) of the Act and Sections 73.1350(a) and 17.51 of the Rules and for willfully violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a), and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004.html
      • FORFEITURE ORDER [313]Forrester, et al., KLYR(AM), Clarksville, Arkansas 06-21-2004 ORDER [314]APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. dba Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. v. Telstar International, Inc. 06-21-2004 M.O.&O. [315]Radio 810 Nashville, Limited, WMGC(AM), Murfreesboro, Tennessee 06-21-2004 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [316]Middle Georgia Communications, Inc., WMGZ(FM), Eatonton, Georgia 06-18-2004 ORDER [317]Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation 06-18-2004 NAL [318]DIRECTV, Inc. 06-18-2004 FORFEITURE ORDER [319]New York Radio Service, Brooklyn, New York 06-18-2004 CITATION [320]English Sports Betting, Inc., Whitehall, PA, Montego Bay, Jamaica and Ballinasloe, Co.Galway 2, Ireland 06-17-2004 M.O.&O. [321]Georgia Transmission Corp., Tucker, Georgia 06-16-2004 M.O.&O. [322]Pamal Broadcasting Ltd., Latham, New York 06-16-2004 ORDER OF REVOCATION
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-03-4118A1.html
      • the Act.11 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''12 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')13 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. This would be the appropriate base forfeiture amount for a single importation or sale. In this case, Datel imported 15,000 units and sold 12,000 units. Given the number of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1000A1.html
      • See WBJY(FM) Response at 1-2; 1982 Policy Statement, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911, 26 (1982)(public broadcasters are prohibited from airing announcements promoting ``an entity or individual's goods or services where the broadcaster receives or reasonably anticipates the receipt of consideration from such individual or entity''). 15 1982 Policy Statement, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911-12, 26-29 (1982). 16 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80 (b)(4). 17 For purposes of the proceeding initiated by this Memorandum Opinion and Order, AFA shall be the only party to this proceeding. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1000A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1000A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1002A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alsbrooks.2 Mr. Alsbrooks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Billy Thomas Alsbrooks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1003A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Upson.2 Mr. Upson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 William Davon Upson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1016A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Blountstown's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Blountstown Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for willfully violating Sections 11.35, 73.49 and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1017A1.html
      • Georgia Field Office (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Brown Broadcasting.3 Brown Broadcasting has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Brown Broadcasting System, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1019A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1019A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1019A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1047A1.html
      • 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent violation, we find that WXDJ should be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation14 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find the base amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount.16
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1061A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1061A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1061A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1088A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Green.2 Mr. Green has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Jason T. Green IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1089A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Feldman.2 Mr. Feldman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Gary M. Feldman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1090A1.html
      • on the basis of financial hardship. 9 13. We have determined that Small Town's Motion should be granted and that its petition for reconsideration should be considered. We have examined Small Town's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,10 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,11 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Small Town willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1092A1.html
      • it has a history of overall compliance, that it had already planned to modify its organs to meet the Class B requirements before receiving the NAL, and that it stopped importing organs into the U.S. after receiving the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').11 In examining Johannus' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1105A1.html
      • to register the antenna structure. On October 17, 2002, B&H responded to the NAL. In its response, B&H contends that it had timely completed and submitted the tower registration paperwork to the Commission. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining B&H's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1107A1.html
      • conclude that Holladay did not willfully violate Section 17.50 of the Rules. Specifically, we find that the cables on the tower, although unpainted, did not compromise good visibility of the tower.3 Accordingly, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b)4 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4)5 of the Rules, the proposed $10,000 forfeiture issued to Holladay Broadcasting Company, Inc., NAL/Acct. No. 200332700003, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Holladay Broadcasting Co., Inc. DBA/WKSM, 225 NW Hollywood Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32859 and its counsel, Bart
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1108A1.html
      • and received by the Commission on November 12, 2002.4 Piedmont also submits the tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001, of its principal in support of its claim of an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement).7 In examining Piedmont's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1142A1.html
      • Based on our review of Sedalia Smiles' response to the NAL and the overall record, we conclude that Sedalia Smiles did not willfully and/or repeatedly violate Section 17.51(b) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332560004, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Steven D. Semon and Jackie L. Semon dba Sedalia Smiles, 720 E. Fifth St., Sedalia, MO 65301. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1144A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1144A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1144A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-119A1.html
      • the antenna structure was not a willful. In addition, Meade asserts that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount at this time but is willing to enter into a payment plan. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Meade's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-120A1.html
      • was incorrectly installed on the wrong frequency and that this problem has been corrected. Citywide seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture and asserts that it has a history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Citywide's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-121A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Media's January 13, 2003, petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's Forfeiture Order issued on December 5, 2002, IS DISMISSED as untimely and the issuance of the $6,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.7 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1242A1.html
      • June 9, 2003.4 In its response, Petracom does not dispute the NAL findings. However, as discussed below, Petracom seeks cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture amount based upon its remedial efforts, history of compliance, and inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Petracom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1243A1.html
      • the NAL findings. Nevertheless, as detailed below, Clear Channel seeks cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, based on the fact that the Buffalo Office allegedly erred in inspecting the antenna structure, and that Clear Channel instituted prompt remedial action. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining Clear Channel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1256A1.html
      • the New York Office agents. New Eastern requested that if the Commission did not cancel the forfeiture, to consider reducing it. New Eastern provided profit and loss statements for 1999, 2000, and 2001. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining New Eastern's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1257A1.html
      • cancelled or substantially reduced.4 In support thereof, Crews submitted its tax returns from the years 2001, 2000 and 1999 and stated that it had never been cited for any violation of Commission rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crews response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1272A1.html
      • Needham's inability to pay claim and supporting documentation, we conclude that the assessed $10,000 forfeiture would pose a financial hardship. We therefore conclude that cancellation of the forfeiture is warranted based on the Needham's inability to pay.5 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 405, 503(b)(2)(d) and 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules, the Needham's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to William L. and Lucille Needham, 1090 Bluff Drive, Osage Beach, Missouri 65065. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1273A1.html
      • records confirm, that Accessory was dissolved on September 19, 2003, and its status was ``inactive.'' Given that the company has been dissolved, and that neither it nor its principals holds Commission authorizations, we believe that cancellation of the $20,000 Forfeiture Order is appropriate. Consistent with the discretion accorded to us under 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 10 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,11 as well as recent precedent,12 we therefore are canceling the $20,000 forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 405 and 504(b) of the Act13 and Sections 1.106 and 1.80(i) of the Rules,14 the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Accessory Connection, Inc. of the Bureau's February 6, 2003 Forfeiture Order for NAL/Acct. No. 200232700019 IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1286A1.html
      • as the circumstances, the nature and history of prior offenses, his degree of culpability as well as his inability to pay. He submitted no documentation substantiating an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Dorcely's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1290A1.html
      • On October 30, 2003, the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Pacifica.2 Pacifica has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Pacifica Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Section 73.1690 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1292A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1292A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1292A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1296A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1296A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1296A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1298A1.html
      • seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its unique role in its community, its commitment to continued remedial action and remedial actions taken so far and its claimed inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining MRJ's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1304A1.html
      • the fact that the record contains evidence only of limited routing failures in one state, we find that CenturyTel is apparently liable in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, CenturyTel, Inc., CenturyTel of Washington, Inc., CenturyTel of Cowiche, Inc., and CenturyTel of Inter Island, Inc. are hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Commission orders and section 52.26(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1306A1.html
      • maintained a nearly complete public file at 541 S. Main Street. In addition, Metropolitan argues that, if a forfeiture is imposed, the amount should be reduced because of the ``inconsequentiality'' of the offense. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Metropolitan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1332A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1332A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1332A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1333A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1333A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1333A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1350A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 8 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1350A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1350A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1351A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1351A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1351A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1383A1.html
      • the light was out and that it failed to notify the FAA of the outage.7 Wings' response included a recitation of its unsuccessful repair efforts as justification for its request for forfeiture cancellation. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Wings' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1389A1.html
      • the violations and its inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. Pilgrim filed a supplementary response on February 20, 2003, containing copies of its 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Pilgrim's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1390A1.html
      • the violations and its inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. Pilgrim filed a supplementary response on February 20, 2003, containing copies of its 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Pilgrim's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1392A1.html
      • that the station engineer does not work there full time and claims that the station is in the process of completing installation of another ground system and is addressing interference and transmitter problems. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Melodynamic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1401A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Louis.2 Mr. Louis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Mr. Rony Richard Louis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1402A1.html
      • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to L.A.C.A.2 L.A.C.A. has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 L.A.C.A., State of New York, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1403A1.html
      • trained to ensure that the EAS tests are properly logged. Additionally, Fayette County Broadcasting seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its prompt remedial action and its claimed inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Fayette County Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1406A1.html
      • response to the NAL.8 In its response, MBHD did not dispute the NAL's findings, but nevertheless sought cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount based on its remedial efforts and its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1411A1.html
      • Pennsylvania Field Office (``Philadelphia Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Best Wok.2 Best Wok has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Best Wok IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1442A1.html
      • prior offenses; and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. To support his inability to pay claim, Mr. Massett submitted copies of his 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Massett's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1447A1.html
      • those likely to qualify for the service or support. We find Pend Oreille apparently liable for $25,000. We also admonish the company for failing to respond in a timely and thorough manner to a Commission directive. 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 that Pend Oreille Telephone Company IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1)(B) and sections 54.405(b) and 54.411(d) of the Commission's rules 47 C.F.R 54.405(b), 54.411(d) as described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1452A1.html
      • harmed and that it promptly corrected the violation. BLCI also claims that it is financially unable to pay the forfeiture and that it has a history of compliance with Commission rules and regulations. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining BLCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1453A1.html
      • no reduction of the monetary forfeiture is warranted. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 Tri-County's Petition for Reconsideration, filed June 12, 2003, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules9 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1471A1.html
      • justice may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,27 and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,28 that New Northwest Broadcasters, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, New
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1533A1.html
      • environment'' and implemented a ``common sense'' approach to RFR compliance which is consistent with OET Bulletin 654; and that, if it did violate Section 1.1310 of the Rules, the appropriate sanction is admonishment. III. Discussion 9. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Americom's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1576A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1576A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1576A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1577A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1577A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1577A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1578A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1578A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1578A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1580A1.html
      • the immediate measures it took to correct the violations noted in the NAL, as well as an inability to pay any forfeiture at all. The response is accompanied by one partial-year financial statement. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').7 In examining Greenwood's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1590A1.html
      • did not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, Ad-Venture sought a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay, its unblemished history of compliance, and its prompt remedial efforts. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1600A1.html
      • December 3, 2002 were inconsistent with UTI's subsequent inspection of the antenna structure.5 PCI notes that it promptly contacted the FAA of this outage. Accordingly, PCI asserts that the violations were not ``willful.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1610A1.html
      • findings of the NAL, that it willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Rather, the licensee seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Floyd County Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1619A1.html
      • to the Enforcement Bureau within 30 days of the release of this Order confirming that it has repaired the lighting outage. Vector's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Vector.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Vector Communications, Inc. d/b/a WCFI, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1620A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to WBLB.2 WBLB has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 WBLB, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for repeatedly violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1621A1.html
      • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Parkway.2 Parkway has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Parkway Luxury Ride, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1629A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1629A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1629A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1631A1.html
      • no prior record of violation with the Commission. Finally, the licensee claimed it is a small station and submitted tax returns for the years 1999-2002, in support of its inability to pay claim. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Fun Media Group's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1633A1.html
      • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 4 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1633A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1633A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1670A1.html
      • are now complete, that only a ``handful'' of files were missing, and that no actual harm was done because no one requested to view the public inspection file during the time in question. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').7 In examining TWEAN's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the alleged violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1687A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1687A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1687A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1691A1.html
      • equipment for Station KCAF(AM) was being monitored and tested from its Dallas studio. Finally, Renaissance Radio states that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, as it is a debtor in possession. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Renaissance Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1693A1.html
      • must be submitted in the form of a sworn declaration. If Clay fails to submit such a report indicating that he has ceased operation, we will consider further appropriate enforcement action, including potential revocation of his amateur radio license. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 Mark A. Clay IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 5. IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant Section 308(b) of the Act, Mr. Clay must submit the report described in Paragraph 3, above, within 30 days from the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1710A1.html
      • an oversight during the transfer of property, the registered owner of the tower was not changed at closing.'' However, Pamal sought a reduction of the forfeiture amount based upon its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1714A1.html
      • overall record, we conclude that, because the tower was not required to be registered by Georgia Transmission Corp., Georgia Transmission did not willfully and/or repeatedly violate Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332480009, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Georgia Transmission Corp., 2100 E. Exchange Place, Tucker, Georgia 30084. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1720A1.html
      • Finally, NYRS argues that its violation is not as egregious as unlicensed ``pirate'' operation, that its unauthorized operation did not cause any harmful interference and that it has a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining NYRS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1732A1.html
      • to take the measurements. In addition, Radio 810 argues that the Forfeiture Order is procedurally defective because it was mailed to the company's former address and was addressed to Radio 810's previous corporate name. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Radio 810's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1750A1.html
      • located had numerous openings with no fencing, affording unrestricted access to the tower. In addition, there was no fence at the base of the tower. The tower had radio frequency potential at the base. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Forrester's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1751A1.html
      • measurements, the agent calculated the system's cumulative leakage index (``CLI'') at a value of 68.7, exceeding the allowed cumulative signal leakage performance criteria of 64, in violation of Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining STC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1752A1.html
      • the NAL, we conclude that, contrary to the contemporaneous statements made by WGUL-FM employees at the time of the inspection, WGUL-FM is not the owner of antenna structure #1027884. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed against WGUL-FM. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432700012, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to WGUL-FM, Inc., 35048 US Highway 19, North, Palm Harbor, FL 34684 and James A. Koerner, Counsel for WGUL-FM, Inc., 5809
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1760A1.html
      • not dispute the NAL's findings regarding power excesses and EAS deficiencies, but claimed that they were due to unusual circumstances and further claimed that it was unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amounts. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining M.J. Phillips' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the violations' nature, circumstances, extent and gravity, and the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1770A1.html
      • it hired a firm to erect interior fencing around the base of each tower. Finally, it argues the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its overall history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Metro Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1847A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1847A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1847A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1868A1.html
      • regular inspection of the tower and the fact that the problem occurred shortly after an inspection by Mega, we conclude that Mega did not willfully violate Section 73.49 of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332260003, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Mega Communications of New Britain, Licensee, L.L.C., 8121 Georgia Avenue, 10th floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 and to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2003A1.html
      • citing an inability to pay. In support, Pilgrim described losses from a prior burglary and submitted its tax returns from 1998-2001. Pilgrim also described remedial measures undertaken as further justification for forfeiture cancellation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Pilgrim's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2005A1.html
      • that the size of the forfeiture is disproportionate to the size of station. The response is accompanied by an exhibit entitled ``Deposit Detail'' along with a copy of an arbitration decision concerning Meeker. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Meeker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2011A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2011A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2011A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2013A1.html
      • the proposed forfeiture based the fact that it has a history pf compliance with the Commission's rules. The response is accompanied by a copy of its October 31, 2002 response to the NOV. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Simmons' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2020A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2020A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2020A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2021A1.html
      • 2003. In his response, Mr. DeNaples conceded that he operated on frequency 154.515 MHz, but argued that he applied for and was issued a license for that frequency more than thirty years ago.5 III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Dominic DeNaples' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2023A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2023A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2023A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2040A1.html
      • an order for a new inner base fence it placed almost a week before the agents' inspection. Finally, PCI claims it is unable to pay the $7,000 forfeiture and submitted supporting financial documentation. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2041A1.html
      • Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Mayo.2 Mr. Mayo has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Stanley Mark Mayo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2042A1.html
      • Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $11,000 to Mr. Granda.2 Mr. Granda has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Daniel Granda IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $11,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 308(b) and 333 of the Act and Sections 97.101(b) and 97.101(d) of the Rules . 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2043A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to Sunbelt.2 Sunbelt has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Sunbelt Television, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for repeatedly violating Section 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2082A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2082A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2082A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2159A1.html
      • come into compliance with the Commission's rules. Finally, FNX claims that it has experienced net operating losses at station WPHX(AM) and that imposition of the proposed forfeiture will not serve the public interest. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining FNX's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2160A1.html
      • into compliance with the Commission's rules. Finally, FNX claims that it has experienced substantial net operating losses at station WPHX-FM and that imposition of the proposed forfeiture will not serve the public interest. II. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining FNX's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2162A1.html
      • with previous actions. Finally, Chladek argues that it has never been cited for an infraction of the Rules and this factor should have been taken into account with the issuance of the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Chladek's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2188A1.html
      • Tennessee again avers its good faith belief that the May 11 notification, assignment of license application and subsequently filed ownership report adequately alerted the Commission to the change in ownership of the antenna structure. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,9 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In examining East Tennessee's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2259A1.html
      • with the U.S.-Mexico treaty and that the Mexican station was causing harmful interference to licensed U.S. broadcast stations.34 Accordingly, based upon the record before us, we find that PSN supplied cross-border programming to Station XEKTT in apparent willful35 and repeated36 violation of the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) authorization. 13. Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act,37 and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Rules,38 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of a Commission issued permit, license or other authorization shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The forfeiture amount for entities other than broadcast licensees or permittees, cable television operators and common carriers may not exceed $11,000 for each violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2260A1.html
      • an inability to pay the forfeiture. Barnacle, however, submitted only a Balance Sheet, Mortgage Note and Income Statement for 2002 created by the President of Barnacle as documentation in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Barnacle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2264A1.html
      • it is a small business entity, in support of its request that the forfeiture be reduced, without providing any financial documentation. It is well established that reliance on small business status alone without substantiation of the inability to pay claim is insufficient.4 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act5, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules6, Pacifica Foundation, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for its willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.61(a)(1)(i), 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2265A1.html
      • monitors the lights and sends an alarm using cell radio technology. Additionally, Business Cell states that if an alarm system failed to check in once every 24 hours it would be notified. III. DISCUSSION 8. 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Business Cell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2316A1.html
      • FAA two years to conduct a new aeronautical study and that it has been waiting on a response from the Commission to its July 20, 1999 filing of an antenna structure registration application. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Clamor's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2330A1.html
      • through its General Counsel, Mr. Vaughn, in his letter of November 21, 2003. Out of nine categories of information and documents the Enforcement Bureau's letter dated November 13, 2003 directed AFA to provide, Mr. Vaughn responded to two while offering no explanation for not responding to the other categories.28 C. Proposed Action 13. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.29 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule.30 The Forfeiture Policy Statement sets forth a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2334A1.html
      • claim, Servisair submits financial documentation for 2000 and 2001.4 Servisair also noted that neither itself, its parent company nor its sister companies have previously been found in violation of Commission rules or regulations. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Servisair's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2338A1.html
      • engineer to submit its STL application and that it would receive a license in due course. Arnold admitted that it ``did not think about the matter again'' until the Denver Office agent's inspection. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Arnold's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2343A1.html
      • did not receive any financial benefit from the operation of the station; that the ``owner and operator'' of the station is ``free of charge''; and that he cannot pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Desinor's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2346A1.html
      • Arizona State and Penn State. Finally, Johnson argues the forfeiture should be reduced or canceled because it does not have a prior history of violations and is unable to pay the proposed amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Johnson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-236A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-236A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-236A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2387A1.html
      • Cornell states the forfeiture would constitute an extreme financial hardship, given the school's overall financial condition and the fact that the proposed forfeiture exceeds the station's annual budget for the 2003-2004 school year. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Cornell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2388A1.html
      • stays and interfered with Mr. Andrews' ability to oversee the operations and maintenance of the tower. Finally, Andrews Tower states that the proposed forfeiture is its first fine or violation from the Commission III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Andrews Tower's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2391A1.html
      • Broadcasters Association and the author of the EAS guidelines for Arkansas Broadcasters. Finally, Pearson requests relief from the forfeiture due to inability to pay, and provides financial information in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Pearson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-240A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-240A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-240A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2441A1.html
      • Casey has presented financial information only with respect to this station and not his company overall,6 and has not provided any supporting documentation, we are not in a position to make a downward adjustment based on inability to pay.7 III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 Casey Network, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules9 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2459A1.html
      • cancellation of the forfeiture, implying that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture. Finally, it supplements its response stating that it will paint the tower on or about April 15, 2003. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Wanda Doonan Trust's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2466A1.html
      • monetary forfeiture. CB contends that it attempted to register WBEJ's antenna structure but was not successful until February 14, 2003,3 and that its failure to timely register WPEJ's antenna structure was not willful. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').6 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining CB's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2470A1.html
      • reducing the proposed forfeiture, we admonish Sauer for his deliberate, willful and repeated violations of the Part 97 of the Rules governing amateur radio operations, and caution Sauer that further violations may result in additional enforcement measures, including revocation of his license.4 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Ronald E. Sauer IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four hundred dollars ($400) for its deliberate, willful and repeated violations of Sections 97.101(d), 97.113(a)(4) and 97.119(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2473A1.html
      • that it violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules and disputing the fencing violation. Pittman also seeks a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount based on a past history of compliance and financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement.7 In examining Pittman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.8
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2479A1.html
      • forfeiture in the amount of $17,000 to Williams. Williams does not contest the subject violations. Williams filed a response to the NAL on May 16, 2003, and supplemented his response on July 21 and 23, 2004. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-247A1.html
      • a response on August 1, 2003. In its response, RJM does not challenge the findings of the NAL. Rather, RJM seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining RJM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2482A1.html
      • Jackson further characterized his operation of the station as a ``public service,'' and claimed that he never received financial gain from its operation as additional justification for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Donald Jackson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2486A1.html
      • circumstances and was not willful. Additionally, Entravision claims that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because of its ``good faith efforts to bring the station into compliance'' and history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Entravision's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2488A1.html
      • the November 27, 2002 Warning Letter and immediately shut down the operation upon notice of violation, and his inability to pay. He submitted no documentation substantiating an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) ``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Selvanto's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2489A1.html
      • such alternatives are too costly and time-consuming. Moreover, Mr. Simon alleges that the Commission's licensing rules violate the First Amendment and that the Commission seized equipment in Mr. Simon's home pursuant to an illegal and unlawful search and seizure. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Simon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2494A1.html
      • on May 20, 2003. In its response, FTP does not contest the violation. FTP seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its post-inspection mitigation efforts, inability to pay, and its history of overall compliance. II. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining FTP's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2497A1.html
      • 2003 requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, alleging that the agents' inspection of the antenna structure site was improper, and stating that it instituted prompt remedial action to correct the noted violations. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Capstar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-24A1.html
      • it, by a communications company to solve a problem Acapulco was having with background noise from drivers. Finally, Acapulco states that it has programmed its equipment to operate only on its licensed frequency. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Acapulco's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2515A1.html
      • small, independent broadcaster'' and that the Commission ``should not discourage companies like 4M whose successful efforts to save troubled AM stations and bring new programming choices to listeners have served the public interest.'' III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining the 4M companies' response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2517A1.html
      • justify rescinding the forfeiture. And, as noted above, this is not the first Infinity violation of our telephone broadcast rule. We therefore reject Infinity's arguments that imposing a forfeiture in this instance would constitute impermissible disparate treatment. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,18 Infinity Radio Operations, Inc., shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2518A1.html
      • Based on our review of Gulf Stream's response to the NAL, including its good faith efforts to comply prior to being informed of the FCC inspection and its history of overall compliance, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700025, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail to Gulf Stream Natural Gas System, Attention, P. Martin Teague, Associate General Counsel, 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Houston, TX 77612
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2530A1.html
      • caused by the Model TM60's non-compliance mitigate the failure of the device to comply with Commission Rules.20 Further, while we commend IKUSI's commitment to comply with the Commission's rules in the future, such post-remedial measure does not lessen, mitigate, or excuse IKUSI's violations. 21 Indeed, corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission Rules is expected. 22 10. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for importing and marketing non-compliant equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that the base forfeiture amounts shall be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2536A1.html
      • which showed that Tennessee Gas had registered its tower and installed strobe lights, we conclude that Tennessee Gas did not willfully and repeatedly violate Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332280007, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 1001 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2538A1.html
      • with a copy of the NOV attached. The Columbia Office received a postal receipt proving delivery of the letter on January 25, 2003, but did not receive a reply to the January 17 letter. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining JMK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-253A1.html
      • claiming that that it did not willfully violate the antenna fencing requirements of Section 73.49, that it had years of broadcasting experience, and that it was a ``small daytime radio station operating out of a very humble mobile home.'' III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining WCVC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2543A1.html
      • 3 (rel. March 22, 1985) (Field Operations Bureau properly denied respondent the name of complainants who had written letter to assist Commission in ``effecting its duty to maintain and assure the proper use of the electromagnetic spectrum,'' despite respondent's desire to pursue civil remedies for alleged defamatory qualities of letter). 13 See NAL Response at 3- 4 (citing 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4)). 14 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2543A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2543A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2553A1.html
      • requisite two sources. On March 31, 2003, the San Diego Office issued a NAL for $15,000 to Playa del Sol for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35, 11.61, and 73.1125 of the Rules. II. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Playa del Sol's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2554A1.html
      • support of his inability to pay contention. We have reviewed the financial information submitted by Mr. Neely and find that this information does not provide a basis for cancellation. Indeed, the forfeiture is a very small percentage of Rejoice, Inc.'s gross revenues.5 4`. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act6, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,7 Frank Neely IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for his repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2853A1.html
      • pay.8 Therefore, we again decline to cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture on the basis of inability to pay. 9. We have considered the forfeiture amount and we have examined Mr. O'Quinn's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,9 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,10 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Mr. O'Quinn willfully violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate.11 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act12 and Section 1.106
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2854A1.html
      • the antenna structure, that it repainted the tower promptly after the Commission notice and before the NAL was issued, and that its failure to repaint the tower before Commission notice was not willful.3 III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Leon's Radio's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2864A1.html
      • the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,13 and Section 1.106 of the Rules, 14 the petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $10,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 19. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.15 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2874A1.html
      • documentation, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture is warranted based on the company's inability to pay.4 While we cancel the forfeiture, we admonish Rainbow for its repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the proposed forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars ($8,000.00) for apparent repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rainbow Honolulu IS ADMONISHED for its repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2877A1.html
      • towers and an engineering firm to submit the necessary studies to the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'') to obtain a no hazard determination. Williams asserts it will immediately register the three towers after it receives an FAA no hazard determination. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Williams's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2879A1.html
      • Mobile's inability to pay. We do find, however that St. Louis Mobile should be admonished for its repeated violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 5. We have examined St. Louis Mobile's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,4 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,5 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that St. Louis Mobile's petition for reconsideration should be granted, the monetary forfeiture against St. Louis Mobile should be cancelled and St. Louis Mobile should be admonished for its repeated violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2881A1.html
      • that the violation was willful or repeated. Finally, Palmetto discusses its poor financial situation and provides copies of its 2000, 2001, and 2002 tax returns, presumably to demonstrate its inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Palmetto's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2886A1.html
      • approximately October 31, 2003. Cell Page still has not submitted its tax returns.3 Without the appropriate financial documentation, we can not consider Cell Page's claim of inability to pay;4 therefore, we deny its request for reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. 5 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act6, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,7 Cell Page IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for its willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2887A1.html
      • withdrawal will be processed by WTB concurrently with this Order. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Mr. Kamm's petition for reconsideration of the June 6, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 the forfeiture in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) assessed in the Forfeiture Order issued to Scott E. Kamm IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Scott E. Kamm at his address of record. FEDERAL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2888A1.html
      • 2003 response to the NAL, including its statement that it is not the operator of the unlicensed radio transmitter. Based on our review of its response and the record before us, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the April 23, 2003 NAL issued to Hip Hop City Corp. IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Hip Hop City, 1236 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11216.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2890A1.html
      • ``the Norfolk Office improperly used ESI's good faith and voluntary disclosures of prior improper programming by a service representative as a basis to refuse rather than allow any reduction of the base forfeiture.'' III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining ESI's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2891A1.html
      • proposed monetary forfeiture. WFNO argues that it has a history of overall compliance, made voluntary disclosures, made good faith efforts to come into compliance and was cooperative during and after the inspection. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining WFNO's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2903A1.html
      • WSJM was only monitoring one EAS source because an antenna from one of its EAS monitors had become dislodged; and 4) the station has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules. I. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining WSJM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2904A1.html
      • 21, 2003. Mr. Simon admits that his vehicle was parked in the driveway of the residence on that date, but claims that his wife and ``her friend'' were using his vehicle that day. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Simon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2910A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2910A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2910A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2971A1.html
      • nevertheless sought cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture based upon its good faith efforts to comply with the subject registration requirements, after the Dallas Office notified Ramsey of the lack of registration. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2981A1.html
      • home from a trip and received the Bureau's letter. He stated that he would file his written response to the letter the next week. More than three months later, however, Mr. Goodman still has not responded or provided the information or documents required by the Bureau's letter of inquiry. III. DISCUSSION 3. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.7 In order to impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2989A1.html
      • engaged a contractor to coordinate reports and register the antenna structure more than a year prior to the Commission's on-site inspection.5 Under the circumstances, we believe a reduction of the $3,000 base forfeiture for that violation to $1,000 is warranted.6 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 503(a) and (b) of the Act,7 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 Southern Media Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nine thousand dollars ($9,000) for its willful violation of the EAS and antenna registration requirements set forth in Sections 17.4(a) and 11.35(a) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2992A1.html
      • 31, 2003, Mr. Taylor filed with the Commission an application for a change in ownership of the subject antenna structure, which was granted that same day.3 Mr. Taylor is no longer a Commission licensee. 3. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and in accordance with the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act4 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that cancellation of the forfeiture amount of $10,000 is warranted.6 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $10,000 forfeiture issued to Robert B. Taylor IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3017A1.html
      • 106.9 MHz.6 Global characterized its operation on the additional channels as an experiment intended to ``explore the role of Part 15'' and ``provide the FCC with reliable data'' as further justification for cancellation. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Global's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3019A1.html
      • adjusted from $4,000 to $8,000. On March 20, 2003, Union filed a Response seeking a decrease in the forfeiture amount, alleging that it has taken remedial actions to comply with the referenced Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Union's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3022A1.html
      • requests cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture on the basis of financial hardship and submits copies of its 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 federal income tax returns in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining EICB's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3025A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3025A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3025A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3026A1.html
      • FCC Account ID No. 0441724048 For C Block Facilities in the ) FRN No. 0007043409 710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2004 Released: September 22, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Star Wireless, LLC (``Star'') engaged in collusive conduct during a Commission-conducted auction in 2002, in willful and repeated violation of section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules.2 Based on the information before us, we conclude that Star is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). II. BACKGROUND 2.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3027A1.html
      • Account ID No. 0442010372 ) FRN No. 0002706190 For C Block Facilities in the ) 710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2004 Released: September 22, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Northeast Communications of Wisconsin, Inc. (``Northeast'') engaged in collusive conduct during a Commission-conducted auction in 2002, in willful violation of section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules.2 Based on the information before us, we conclude that Northeast is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). II. BACKGROUND 2.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3042A1.html
      • inability to pay claim was denied. The Order concluded that Radio X willfully violated Sections 17.50 and 73.3526(b) of the Rules and that neither cancellation nor reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture was warranted. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,5 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Radio X's Petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3106A1.html
      • a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith and prompt remedial efforts, the nature and circumstances of the violations, and its record of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mercury's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3107A1.html
      • equipment for the system until March 12, 2003. Mediacom stated that the equipment was installed by March 17, 2003, and Mediacom promptly repaired the outage after learning about it from the field inspector. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mediacom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3149A1.html
      • was damaged after February 7, 2004 such damage was most likely the result of vandalism. Finally, he argues the forfeiture should be reduced based on the station's long-time record of compliance with the Rules and the station's financial situation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Delta's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3150A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $18,000 to TPN.2 TPN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 The Paradise Network of North Carolina, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3153A1.html
      • reduction in the forfeiture amount.3 We concur, however, with Urban Radio's assertion that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled in light of its overall history of compliance with the Rules.4 Accordingly we reduce the forfeiture amount to $12,000. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Urban Radio of Pennsylvania, L.L.C., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.47(a), 17.48(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3154A1.html
      • number for the individual to contact him. Mr. Pierre provided no information as to the identity, whereabouts or telephone number for ``Jean Louis'' and stated merely that he was refuting the allegations and wanted the matter ``put to rest.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Pierre's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3157A1.html
      • response, Butterfield seeks cancellation of the forfeiture because it was ``in the process of dealing with the problem and it has since been resolved,'' and because it is unable to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').8 In examining Butterfield's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the alleged violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3158A1.html
      • 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 FBS Wireless Corporation's petition for reconsideration, filed November 21, 2003, IS DENIED and the issuance of the $20,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3183A1.html
      • radio bands given his valid amateur license; and that any possible suspension of his license is also pending a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, making the NAL moot until the suspension occurs. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),17 Section 1.80 of the Rules,18 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').19 In examining Gerritsen's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3189A1.html
      • November 2002 and November 2003 and the model EPIA-CL CPU board between August/September 2003 and November 2003. Therefore, although we find that some of VIA's apparent violations occurred outside the one-year statute of limitations, we propose forfeitures here only for the violations which occurred within the last year. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines24 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,25 the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. In this case, VIA imported and marketed two unauthorized models of CPU boards. We find that a forfeiture amount of $7,000 is warranted for each unauthorized model.26 Accordingly, we are proposing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-318A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-318A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-318A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3199A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Konarz.2 Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3205A1.html
      • owed by Station WB0TPF, argues that Station WB0TPF should not be assessed a fine for putting up an antenna that benefits the community, and asks that the forfeiture be cancelled. Northern states that it will register the tower. III. DISCUSSION 8. The NAL assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Northern's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3239A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3239A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3239A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3240A1.html
      • a response to the NAL. In that response, Capital Media admits that its EAS receiver did not receive the tests in question, but urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount.3 III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Capital Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3244A1.html
      • claim because, in fact, the Enforcement Bureau has found various Saga affiliates in violation of the Commission's rules in numerous cases in the past four years.17 We therefore decline to reduce the forfeiture amount on these grounds. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,18 Saga Communications of New England, LLC, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of $4,000 for willfully violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3245A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3245A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3245A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3246A1.html
      • pay. Based on our review of the financial information provided by Business Cell, we conclude that an eight thousand dollar ($8,000) forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on the licensee. Therefore, we reduce the forfeiture to one thousand dollars ($1,000). 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules,2 Business Cell's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED, and the $8,000 forfeiture is reduced to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for Business Cell's willful and repeated violation of Section 17.51(b) of the Rules. 3. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules3 within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3248A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3248A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3248A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3249A1.html
      • 20, 2004. In its response, VPM did not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, VPM sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inadvertence, remedial efforts, inability to pay, and history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3250A1.html
      • services ``in a manner reasonably designed to reach those who qualify'' for those services. However, as discussed above, Pend Oreille has shown mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty to $20,000. 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) that Pend Oreille shall forfeit to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1)(B), and Sections 54.405(b) and 54.411(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 54.405(b), 54.411(d) as discussed in the paragraphs above. 14. Payment of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3258A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''23 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.24 However, we think that a substantial proposed forfeiture for this violation is warranted. Violation of the E911 rules is extremely serious because these rules are intended to promote safety of life.25 Further, the Phase I requirements set forth in Section 20.18(d) have
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3263A1.html
      • Crown states that during the period between the antenna structure inspection and issuance of the NAL, Crown painted the antenna structure, including the cables, prior to receiving notice of the violation from the Commission. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3264A1.html
      • NAL (``response'') wherein it challenged only the public inspection file violation and sought a reduction or cancellation in the proposed forfeiture because of an inability to pay and history of no prior offenses. II. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Paulino's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3267A1.html
      • to a licensed U.S. broadcast station. Based on the record before us, we thus find that, by delivering cross-border programming to Station XEMO, Uniradio undermined one of the primary objectives of Section 325 of the Act and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit. 8. Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act,26 and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Rules,27 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of a Commission issued permit, license or other authorization shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The forfeiture amount for entities other than broadcast licensees or permittees, cable television operators and common carriers may not exceed $11,000 for each violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3273A1.html
      • Woodland requested a reduction of the forfeiture amount because it imposes an economic burden on the licensee. Woodland enclosed its tax returns from 2001 to 2003 in support of its economic burden claim. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Woodland's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3277A1.html
      • which showed that Redwood did not own the tower at the time the NAL was issued, we find that Redwood did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432960001, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Redwood Family Services, Inc., P. O. Box 180, Tahoma, California 96142, and its counsel Dennis J. Kelly, Esquire,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3286A1.html
      • not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, Big Island sought a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts, its unblemished history of compliance and its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3302A1.html
      • files in accordance with Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules. Finally, Ross states that a new EAS Encoder/Decoder has been ordered and will be installed, made operational, and proper logs kept of its use. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Ross' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3305A1.html
      • AAT argues that no painting could be done at the time of inspection because of winter weather, even if it had been aware that the paint had faded to the point of violation. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AAT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3317A1.html
      • the Commission cited it for not having, and urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount based on its compliance history, its small market size and in the interest of justice. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Crystal Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3318A1.html
      • Commission's Detroit, Michigan Field Office (``Detroit Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Paladen.3 Paladen has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3328A1.html
      • that the agents trespassed on his private property without a warrant and refused to leave his property when requested. Finally, he argues that there is no evidence that he operated the radio equipment in alleged violation of the Act. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Mr. Dean's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-332A1.html
      • previously controlled by Arbros, we decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture amount. We conclude that the proposed forfeiture, $50,000, is reasonable based on all the evidence in the record, including the most recent gross revenue information Arbros submitted.17 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,18 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,19 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,20 Arbros Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3345A1.html
      • notification by Commission agents on June 23, 2003; 2) its site personnel did not intend to violate the Rules; and 3) Forest did not authorize its personnel to operate on frequency 473.175 MHz. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Forest's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3348A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 11 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 12 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3348A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3348A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3355A1.html
      • his inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. 5. In a telephone conversation with Bureau counsel on June 29, 2004, Mr. Martin stated that antenna structure number 1220001 was painted during April 2003. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Policy Statement'').6 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Martin's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-337A1.html
      • basis for cancellation or reduction of the $10,000 monetary forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act9 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,10 AAT's petition for reconsideration of the February 4, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules11 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.12 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-340A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-340A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-340A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3417A1.html
      • with that responsibility has been disciplined and that the file has since been updated to include the lists. Finally, in support, Lebanon submitted copies of its contour map, manual and updated issues/program lists. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-348A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-348A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-348A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3504A1.html
      • continued operation of the station was in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. After reviewing Mr. Oaks's response, we find that he ``willfully''6 and ``repeatedly''7 violated Section 301 of the Act. In addition, we conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,9 that no reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act10 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,11 Michael David Oaks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3505A1.html
      • send the Commission a copy of his credit report which would show his inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. To date, the Commission has not received a copy of Mr. Brown's credit report. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case has been assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,8 (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Brown's petition take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3516A1.html
      • the Enforcement Bureau's inquiry in seven of the nine categories of information sought.25 Thus, we find no basis for reducing or eliminating the proposed $3,000 forfeiture for failing to comply with a Bureau order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, American Family Association IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's main studio rule and for willfully failing to comply with a Bureau order. 11. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3547A1.html
      • He seeks cancellation or a drastic reduction of the forfeiture amount. In support of his claim of inability to pay the forfeiture amount, he submits certain financial information for the years 2000 - 2002. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').8 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Autry's petition, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3548A1.html
      • urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount based on the fact that it used its best efforts to make the appropriate changes to the EAS equipment to make it operational. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').7 In examining Desert's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3549A1.html
      • we need not address whether the violation was willful.4 We concur, however, with Louisa's assertion that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its inability to pay. Accordingly, we reduce the forfeiture amount to two thousand dollars ($2,000). III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Louisa Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3550A1.html
      • small market of Paris, Texas, and the Commission has recognized that forfeitures impose a ``far greater hardship'' on a small market station than on others, citing Dominga Barreto Santiago6 and Canby Telephone Association.7 III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining East Texas' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3551A1.html
      • test a new coverage area that was intended to reduce the possibility of co- channel interference. Therefore, Horizon argues, the move was not a ``conscious and deliberate'' attempt to violate the Communications Act. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Horizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3552A1.html
      • North Country also argues that it painted the tower as required when it was initially constructed and registered with the FAA. It does not comment on its failure to post the registration number. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining North Country's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3558A1.html
      • folder; and Community has no history of violation of the Commission's Rules. In further support of a reduction or cancellation of its forfeiture, Community cited a series of Enforcement Bureau cases.6 III. DISCUSSION 5. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').9 In examining Community's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3559A1.html
      • Inc.5 (``Tidewater) in support, Aquila submits its lack of intent to violate the rules, its immediate corrective actions, the lack of public harm, its tower compliance program and its long history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Aquila's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3572A1.html
      • submitted its 2000 tax return and several unsigned ``balance sheets'' and a letter from its current manager regarding its current financial condition. Consequently, Portland Taxicab requests a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Portland Taxicab's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-358A1.html
      • been delivered. Mrs. Ortiz asserts that she made a good faith effort to comply with the EAS rule and should not be penalized for the equipment vendor's inability to make timely delivery. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Aracelis Ortiz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3593A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3593A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3593A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3594A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Beacon.2 Beacon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Beacon Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3597A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3597A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3597A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3608A1.html
      • to pay the forfeiture. Lastly, Mr. Estrada asserts that Private Land Mobile Station WSM 534, Chesapeake Bay Contractors, Inc.4 supports elimination of the forfeiture amount as the violation should not be considered repeated. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 7 (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Estrada's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3655A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3655A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3655A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3656A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3656A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3656A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3675A1.html
      • the monetary forfeiture. Mr. Avena also claims that he ceased operating the station on December 20, 2004 and therefore takes issue with the findings in the NAL regarding the station's operation on January 6, 2004 and January 17, 2004. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Avena's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3683A1.html
      • of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent misconduct, we find that Mid-Missouri apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation14 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 As noted above, Mid-Missouri states that it ``believes this was an isolated incident and it is taking the necessary steps to prevent an incident like
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3793A1.html
      • and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the five unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3799A1.html
      • factors warranting reduction of a forfeiture.5 As a result of our review, we conclude that Exosphere willfully6 and repeatedly7 violated Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules. We affirm that a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 is appropriate. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 Exosphere Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3802A1.html
      • Gordon claims, it ``is not true that on April 9, 2003 I was still violating ... [Section] 90.403 (a)(2) of the [C]ommission's rules.'' Mr. Gordon offers no other defense or basis for mitigation. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').5 In examining Mr. Gordon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3803A1.html
      • the Commission should have notified it of the tower's condition when the Commission first discovered the violation on October 29, 2002 so Crown Castle could have remedied the violation and avoided a repeated violation. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown Castle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3805A1.html
      • was corrected upon being informed of the outage, and that the lighting failure resulted from vandalism. Lastly, Mr. Saunders requests cancellation of the forfeiture asserting an inability to pay the forfeiture. 10. III. DISCUSSION 11. 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Saunders's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3819A1.html
      • AGL. In addition, WLTH contends that hunters caused the lighting outage by shooting out the antenna structure lights. Finally, WLTH claims that it notified the FAA of the outage on March 5, 2003. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').8 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining WLTH's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3824A1.html
      • but claims that he was not operating the station at the time of the second inspection. In conclusion, he stated ``I promise you that this kind of behavior will never take place anymore.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case has been assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,5 (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Louis' petition take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3829A1.html
      • of the Rules. In its response to the NAL, Twenty-One seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based on it having a meaningful managerial presence, its history of compliance, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. I. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Twenty-One's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3831A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3831A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3831A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3832A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3832A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3832A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3834A1.html
      • 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders by delivering at least four unsolicited, prerecorded advertisement messages as identified above. We have further determined that WCG is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $23,500. 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and under the authority delegated by section 0.11 and 0.311 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.11, 0.311, that WCG, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $23,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3838A1.html
      • conclude because the announcements seek impermissibly to distinguish favorably their underwriters from competitors by directly stating or implying that they offer superior service or products, and the announcements, in many instances, also invite or urge business patronage. Moreover, the announcements were aired over a substantial period of timefifteen months.19 B. Proposed Action 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.20 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.21 The Forfeiture Policy Statement sets forth a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3850A1.html
      • malfunctioned during the Norfolk Office's March 2003 and February 2004 inspections. However, WBLB sought cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture based on its corrective actions, overall history of compliance and inability to pay. III. DISCUSSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining WBLB's petition, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3852A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Shadavrus.2 Shadavrus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Shadavrus Capital Trust, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3860A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the referenced Rule violation.2 Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act3, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3862A1.html
      • test operations after installing a replacement antenna for station KXPW-LP. Power Radio asserted that due to a misunderstanding with its engineering consultant, it was not aware that it was required to file anything with the FCC. However, licensees are expected to know and comply with the FCC's rules.7 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3866A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3866A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3866A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-386A1.html
      • EB-01-IH-0121 ) NAL/Acct. No. 200232080014 Licensee of Station WKQX(FM), ) FRN 0001529346 Chicago, Illinois ) Facility ID # 19525 ) ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 17, 2004 Released: February 18, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we impose a monetary forfeiture of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) on Emmis FM License Corporation (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for the willful broadcast of indecent material over the station during its March 12, 2001, broadcast of the ``Mancow's Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. II.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-387A1.html
      • December 2, 2002, IS HEREBY DENIED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN)(0001529346) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. (200232080008). If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(a). 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-389A1.html
      • practices (``GAAP''); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects WCSS's current financial status. WCSS has not submitted such documentation and, therefore, cannot persuasively claim that it does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,22 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,23 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,24 that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violating a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau to provide certain information and documents. 13. Payment
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3904A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d) 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3904A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3904A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-390A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-390A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-390A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3912A1.html
      • and that for the last ten years the translator has been used to broadcast public interest programming in Spanish and other programming not available by broadcast in the community. For these reasons, Echonet requests that the forfeiture be retracted. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Echonet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3915A1.html
      • financial hardship.5 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, WCVC's petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's Forfeiture Order issued on February 4, 2004, IS DENIED and the issuance of the $7,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.6 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3947A1.html
      • October 6, 2004, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to VIA.3 VIA has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 VIA Technologies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-396A1.html
      • rules. In light of this apparent violation, we believe it appropriate that Saga be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation29 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act30 and 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,31 which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''32 Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, in particular because this appears to be an isolated violation, we find the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-397A1.html
      • we believe it appropriate that Cumulus be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation15 and provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),16 and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,17 which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 Although we commend Cumulus' efforts to remind its Myrtle Beach on-air employees of the obligations of section 73.1206, Cumulus' subsequent remedial
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3983A1.html
      • act or failure to act.15 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''16 12. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.17 We find that the lack of a response to a Bureau LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a substantial increase to this base amount.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3991A1.html
      • public inspection file for station KMDY-FM during normal business hours and had apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management presence at station KMDY-FM. I. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Moody's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-399A1.html
      • and that ``the forfeiture will simply reduce the amount available to creditors when the bankruptcy is ultimately concluded.''7 North American also denies that the violation was willful, characterizing it as an ``isolated incident . . . result[ing] from inadvertency on the part of the station's staff. ''8 III. DISCUSSSION 5. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.''9 The forfeiture guidelines establish a $4,000 base forfeiture for exceeding authorized power limits.10 In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4004A1.html
      • and the dignity of parties whose conversations may be recorded for simultaneous or later broadcast.28 These considerations are particularly germane to the facts at issue here.29 Under these circumstances, we find that an apparent violation of section 73.1206 and that it is appropriate to propose that AMFM be assessed a monetary forfeiture. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.30 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation.31 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4023A1.html
      • fact by telephone on the same day. Citadel also asserts that all quarterly issues and program lists have since been placed in the files and that Citadel has a good record of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Citadel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4025A1.html
      • Atlanta Office's measurements were inaccurate, that the company undertook immediate and prompt remedial measures, and, finally, that the leakage problems, for the most part, were attributable to customers premises equipment and inside wiring. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4029A1.html
      • inspection file has been addressed by the station manager.'' Rama seeks an elimination of the forfeiture or a reduction, based on the violations being technical in nature and not warranting an $18,000 forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 5 In examining Rama's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4031A1.html
      • 14, 2004. In its response to the NAL, which includes a declaration made under the penalty of perjury by the station's chief engineer, Alfred Hammond, JMK seeks cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining JMK's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4032A1.html
      • of approximately 12% reduced to approximately 4.5% of gross revenues). We do not reach the cases cited by SM Radio in support of its request for reconsideration because of the reasons discussed below. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining SM Radio's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4033A1.html
      • its existing towers cannot be repainted because the towers lead paint if scraped could be harmful to the surrounding environment, and because its efforts to relocate to a new location have been hampered by environmental-related concerns as well. III. DISCUSSION 6. The NAL assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Cumulus's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4036A1.html
      • In a separate note attached to its response, Caprice also states that it cannot afford to pay $4,000 and requests that the Commission consider reducing the forfeiture amount on that basis as well. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules6, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Caprice's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4044A1.html
      • findings. FFP nevertheless sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based upon its good faith efforts to comply with the subject registration requirements, after the Tampa Office notified FFP of the lack of registration. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4045A1.html
      • use of the Louisa tower and would have dismantled it but for Francis's request to use it. 5. The ASR data base indicates that Lycom registered the Louisa tower on March 8, 2004. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Lycom's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-445A1.html
      • to the NAL. The Bureau's Forfeiture Order, released January 31, 2003, affirmed the forfeiture proposed by the NAL. On February 26, 2003, Coffee County filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Coffee County's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-458A1.html
      • have any way in which to verify whether the station was in violation of the Commission's rules. Mr. Alusma also argues that he is unable to pay the forfeiture due to financial hardship. In support of his argument of financial hardship, Mr. Alusma includes various financial documents. III. DISCUSSION 6. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.''4 The forfeiture guidelines establish a $10,000 base forfeiture for operation without a license.5 In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-48A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-48A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-48A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-53A1.html
      • a couple of days. Tekk further states that its violation was not willful and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. Therefore, Tekk seeks reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Tekk's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-544A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-544A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-544A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-602A1.html
      • Roots has no assets. According to Virginia State Corporation Commission records, the business license for Grass Roots Broadcasting, LLC, was cancelled on December 31, 2003. Finally, Grass Roots states that the cited rule violations have been corrected. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act,4 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $20,000 forfeiture is warranted.6 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the proposed $20,000 forfeiture issued to Grass Roots broadcasting IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-605A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-605A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-605A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-684A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-684A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-684A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-692A1.html
      • 73.49 of the Rules. In its response, State requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its corrective efforts and its participation in the Georgia Association of Broadcasters' Alternative Broadcast Inspection Program (``ABIP''). III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining State's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-701A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3) 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-701A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-701A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-708A1.html
      • licensee's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a forfeiture.8 After reviewing the financial data submitted, we find that the monetary forfeiture amount should not be further reduced. 9 11. We have examined Tralyn's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,10 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Tralyn willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules and find that, although cancellation of the monetary forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the forfeiture amount to $5,600 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-709A1.html
      • have not received such a supplementary response. We did receive correspondence from Three Angels on February 13, 2004, but that correspondence simply transmits a copy of Three Angels' earlier response to the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Three Angels' response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-70A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 7 Each entity shall encompass, to the extent they are known to you, any affiliate, d/b/a, parent companies, any wholly or partially owned subsidiary, or other affiliated companies or businesses, and all directors, officers, employees, or agents, including consultants and any other persons working for or on behalf of the foregoing at any time during the period covered by this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-710A1.html
      • or cancellation of the forfeiture, citing an inability to pay, Bonners Ferry's compliance history, remedial measures undertaken, and the physical location and seasonal ground conditions in the immediate area of the antenna structure. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 Section 1.80 of the Rules,3 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Bonners Ferry's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-711A1.html
      • owned and controlled company Kaspar Broadcasting Company, Inc., have an unblemished history of serving their broadcast communities. We believe that the circumstances surrounding and the nature and extent of Kaspar's violation, together with its unblemished past history, justifies cancellation of the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,12 the prior Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332560001, IS CANCELLED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Vern Kaspar, President, Kaspar Broadcasting Co. of Missouri, P.O. Box 545, Frankfort, Indiana 46041. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-773A1.html
      • willful and repeated violation of section 53.203(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. These violations pertain to the nondiscrimination safeguards established by the Act and the Commission's rules to promote efficient competition. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that a forfeiture of $75,000 is appropriate, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-784A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-784A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-784A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-793A1.html
      • the station.'' To support its financial hardship claim, NRS provides copies of its 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns as well as profit and loss statements covering a three year period. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining NRS's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-890A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-890A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-890A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-898A1.html
      • consent to receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14129. 10 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 11 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-898A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-898A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-8A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-900A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $4,000 to Ivette. Ivette has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Esperanza Gonzales d/b/a Ivette Car Service IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-901A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $4,000 to Star. Star has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Star Car Service IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-902A1.html
      • manager. Horne argues that payment of the proposed forfeiture would be a financial hardship. To support its financial hardship argument, Horne provides copies of its 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Horne's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-904A1.html
      • and/or repeatedly violate Section 303(q) of the Act or Sections 17.48(a) and 17.51(b) of the Rules. Specifically, the lighting outage was caused by lightning and the licensee promptly reported the outage to the Federal Aviation Administration. Accordingly, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332360002, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Vicki Schultheis, Manager, FCC Licensing, CenturyTel Wireless of Michigan RSA #1&2, Inc., PO Box 9901, Vancouver, Washington 98668-8701. FEDERAL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-90A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-90A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-90A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-923A1.html
      • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violation and ensure that this does not recur. SM Radio's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the (``Act''),5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, SM Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1125 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-926A1.html
      • that, if the proposed forfeiture is imposed, it will place a serious financial burden on the company and provides copies of its 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns to support this claim. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Westshore's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-947A1.html
      • NAL, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture claiming that the violations resulted from employee error. Petracom also seeks cancellation based on remedial measures taken, an inability to pay, and a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').5 In examining Petracom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-956A1.html
      • file available at the main studio and that it has good record of compliance with FCC requirements. In addition, Trade Center argues that it relied on the advice of its engineer. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Trade Center's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-974A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-974A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-974A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-976A1.html
      • notice may not have provided AAPEX participants with adequate information, given that Schumacher's booth exhibited mock-ups of both authorized, and non-authorized, equipment. We thus caution Schumacher to exercise greater care, by labeling or providing alternative advisory notice for identified authorized devices and by utilizing the standard disclaimer notice for identified non-authorized devices. 12. Section 503(b) of the Act,22 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,23 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244194A1.html
      • the amount of $7,100. The Companies may prepay this amount, and are encouraged to do so, without penalty. The Companies must make these payments by check, wire transfer or money order drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, and the check, or money order must refer to NAL Acct. No. 200332170002 and FRN No. 0007179054. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The Companies must mail the check or money order to: Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. 16. In express reliance on the covenants and representations contained herein, the Bureau agrees to terminate this Proceeding and resolve the Show Cause Order. 17. The Companies represent and warrant that they shall not, for the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244497A1.html
      • the sum of $5,379,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),1 as well as the Commission's related rules and orders. 2.This Erratum corrects the Order of Forfeiture to require Fax.com, Inc. and its affiliated entities, successors and assigns to pay the penalty in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within 30 days from the release of this Erratum.2 If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified herein, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 504(a). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-03-336A1.html
      • has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for modifying the forfeiture proposed in the Fax.com NAL. As discussed above, Fax.com has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. 32. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that Fax.com, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $5,379,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, section 64.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200, and the Commission's orders concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.72 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-128A1.html
      • review has lapsed; 1)j. "Indecency Laws" means 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. 1)k. "Inquiries" means investigations of alleged violations of the Indecency Laws by Clear Channel Stations that have resulted in LOIs to Clear Channel, or to other licensees that relate to Clear Channel Stations; 1)l. "NALs" means Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including (i) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C., et al., released March 12, 2004 (FCC 04-47), (ii) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning Capstar TX Limited Partnership released March 18, 2004 (FCC 04-36), and (iii) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning Clear Channel Broadcasting
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-138A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount for the operation at an unauthorized location or frequency of $4,000.22 However, we think that a substantial upward adjustment of this base forfeiture amount is warranted. As DIRECTV implicitly acknowledged in its October 3, 2003 STA request,23 strict adherence to the rules that govern modification of satellite authorizations is critical to minimizing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-139A1.html
      • this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Section 1.80(b) ) of the Commission's Rules ) ) Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima ) to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: June 14, 2004 Released: June 18, 2004 By the Commission: 1. This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties established in that section to account for inflation since the last
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-16A1.html
      • California ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 23, 2004 Released: January 27, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell, and Commissioners Copps, Martin, and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc. (``Young''), licensee of Station KRON-TV, San Francisco, California, aired program material during the ``KRON 4 Morning News'' show on October 4, 2002, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material.2 Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-17A1.html
      • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 26, 2004 Released: January 27, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the captioned stations during the July 19, November 14, 19, 26 and 27 and December 27, 2001, broadcasts of the ``Bubba
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-186A1.html
      • which the Bureau granted in part C.W.H. Broadcasting's Petition for Reconsideration26 of the C.W.H. Broadcasting Forfeiture Order, that the forfeiture was further reduced from $3,500 to $500 based on an inability to pay.27 III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 28 Section 1.80 of the Rules,29 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.30 In examining Sutro's Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-189A1.html
      • to financial hardship. What has been the effect of such waivers? 46. Enforcement. The Commission has been aggressively enforcing the Commission's EAS rules. In 2003, for example, the Enforcement Bureau took approximately 80 EAS enforcement actions. Nonetheless, some broadcasters have failed to install or properly maintain EAS equipment. The base forfeiture amount set in the Forfeiture Policy Statement94 and section 1.80 of the rules95 for an EAS violation is $8,000. We seek comment on whether we should increase the base amount or otherwise impose higher forfeitures in this area, and on whether there are additional ways to better ensure compliance. We also seek comment on whether we should seek legislation from Congress to increase the maximum forfeitures in this area from
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-197A1.html
      • of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Americans for Decency, 3431 W. Thunderbird Road, Box 275, Phoenix, Arizona 85053-5641. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 See Letter from Americans for Decency to Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, received May 7, 2003. 2 47 U.S.C. 503(b); 47 C.F.R. 1.80 3 Though not specifically defined in the complaint, ``dry humping'' is commonly understood to consist of two people rubbing their clothed bodies together for sexual stimulation. 4 U.S. CONST., amend. I; 47 U.S.C. 326 (2002). 5 18 U.S.C. 1464. 6 Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-356, 106 Stat. 949 (1992) (setting the current safe harbor of 10
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-199A1.html
      • investigations of alleged violations of the Indecency Laws by Emmis Stations that have resulted in LOIs to Emmis, or to other licensees that relate to Emmis Stations; 1)m. ``MO&O'' means that certain Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Commission released April 8, 2004 (File No. EB-00-IH-0401, FCC 04-62); 1)n. "NAL" means a Notice of Apparent Liability issued pursuant to Section 1.80(f) of the Rules; 1)o. "Parties" means Emmis and the Commission; 1)p. "Rules" means the Commission's regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. II. BACKGROUND II.1. Both the Commission and Emmis acknowledge that any proceedings that might result from the Forfeiture Orders, the MO&O, the Inquiries and/or the Complaints will be time- consuming and will require substantial
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-19A1.html
      • review of the MO&O, Alpha reiterated its claim and supplemented its tax returns with a letter from its accountant.5 Finally, Alpha described itself as a ``small ambulance company with 13 employees and six ambulances,''6 that experienced financial decline,7 and that ``lacked intent to operate without a license.''8 III. DISCUSSION 4. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.''9 The forfeiture guidelines establish a $10,000 base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized transmissions.10 In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-205A1.html
      • be reduced because SpectraSite took remedial measures to correct the lighting outage prior to notification from the Commission, and that in fact, it had previously made an appointment with contractors for November 7, 2002, to restore the tower's lighting. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303 (1999). In examining SpectraSite's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-209A1.html
      • Powell issuing a statement; Commissioners Copps and Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing separate statements; and Commissioner Adelstein approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,2 we find that the licensees of the CBS Network Stations, as defined herein,3 aired program material on February 1, 2004, at approximately 8:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, during the halftime entertainment show of the National Football League's Super Bowl XXXVIII, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material.4 Based upon our review
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-224A1.html
      • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 22, 2004 Released: October 15, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Entercom Sacramento License, LLC (``Entercom''), licensee of Station KRXQ(FM), Sacramento, California, broadcast indecent material on two separate occasions, in apparent willful and repeated violation of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we conclude that Entercom is apparently liable for a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-225A1.html
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: September 22, 2004 Released: November 23, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant two complaints2 and find that WQAM License Limited Partnership (``WQAM''), licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the station on September 9 and 10, 2003. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-226A1.html
      • reconsideration of the Reconsideration Order IS DENIED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')19 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules,20 Carl E. Person's Petition to Intervene and for a Rehearing IS DISMISSED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules21 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.22 Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-231A1.html
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: September 28, 2004 Released: December 22, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Entercom Kansas City License, LLC, and Entercom Wichita License, LLC (collectively ``Entercom''),2 licensees of Stations KQRC-FM, Leavenworth, Kansas, and KFH(AM), Wichita, Kansas, respectively, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material during the April 4, April 29, May 2, and May 3, 2002, broadcasts of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-242A1.html
      • Network Program ?Married By America? On April 7, 2003 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 5, 2004 Released: October 12, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (?NAL?), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ?Act?), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,2 we find that the licensees of 169 Fox Television Network stations (?Fox Network Stations?)3 apparently broadcast indecent material during an episode of the Fox program ?Married By America? on April 7, 2003, in apparent willful violation of the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-259A1.html
      • and/or lease of such equipment.54 21. In the instant case, we find that ACR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, by advertising the PLB-200 to the general public, prior to certification without the disclaimer notice required by Section 2.803(c). III.C. Proposed Forfeiture. 22. Section 503(b) of the Act,55 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,56 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-268A1.html
      • respective direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliated entities which either hold authorizations for television and radio broadcast stations (individually referred to herein as a ``Viacom Station'') located throughout the United States or which distribute network or syndicated television and radio programming to broadcast stations (collectively, ``Viacom''). II. BACKGROUND 1. Viacom is subject to certain Forfeiture Orders issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC's Rules involving alleged violations of the Indecency Laws (collectively, ``Forfeiture Orders''). 2. Viacom is subject to certain Notices of Apparent Liability issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC's Rules involving alleged violations of the Indecency Laws (``NALs''). 3. Viacom (and certain affiliates of the CBS Television Network and UPN) are subject to various Letters of Inquiry
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-270A1.html
      • unusual and unique facts and circumstances of this case and does not represent a more generalized weakening of our enforcement obligations. In the future, if entities fail to prepare and file EAs and the facts and circumstances warrant enforcement action, we will take such action. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the rules,19 the prior Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 20332100004 IS CANCELLED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Mr. William J. Hackett, Director of Regulatory Compliance, Western Wireless Corporation, 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-272A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''19 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')20 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,21 the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. 16. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-281A1.html
      • on its field study was reasonable and was a good faith basis for Radio One's belief that KKBT(FM) was not required to undertake the obligations set forth in Section 1.1307(b)(3) concerning stations that exceed the 5% RFR MPE threshold.36 III. DISCUSSION 16. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,37 Section 1.80 of the Rules,38 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').39 In examining the Mt. Wilson Licensees' responses, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-293A1.html
      • advice rendered by Commission officials may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a mitigating factor to be considered in determining forfeiture amount). 13 Minority misstates the Forfeiture Order's holding. The Bureau cited only 17 announcements in setting the forfeiture amount at $10,000. See Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26611, 26616-17 at 15. 14 See id.; 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2); note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). Under section 503(b) of the Act, each prohibited broadcast is deemed to constitute a separate offense. 15 See Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26611, 26616-17 at 15, n.55. 16 Id. 17 See Pine-Aire Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. (WRLS-FM), supra. 18 See Xavier University, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4920 (1990) (the Commission defers to the ``reasonable, good faith judgments''
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-34A1.html
      • cases.4 We therefore deny Infinity's petition. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')5 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules,6 Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act..8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-35A1.html
      • separate violation. For purposes of this proceeding, we will use our traditional per-program approach. We hereby make clear that, in the future, we may treat situations like this as multiple, repeated violations with the accompanying increase in forfeitures. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,48 that AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($27,500.00) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-36A1.html
      • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 20, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant a complaint,2 and find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Capstar''), licensee of Stations WAVW(FM),3 Stuart, Florida, and WCZR(FM) Vero Beach, Florida, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the stations on May 31, 2002. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-39A1.html
      • the Act.23 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''24 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')25 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,26 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. In this case, Samson imported and sold five distinct models. We find that a forfeiture amount of $7,000 is apparently warranted for each model. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-47A1.html
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2004 Released: March 12, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a statement; and Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant a complaint from Stephen M. Arner2 and find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly broadcasting indecent material over the stations on March 13, 2003. Based upon our review of the facts
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-49A1.html
      • Adopted: March 8, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a statement; and Commission Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., licensee of Station WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan, aired program material during the ``Howard Stern Show'' on July 26, 2001, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material.2 Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that Infinity is apparently liable
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-51A1.html
      • nevertheless seeks a substantial reduction in the assessed forfeiture, based upon her inability to pay, her unfamiliarity with Commission requirements, her efforts to correct the noted violations, and her belief that the Commission's base forfeiture scheme is arbitrary and excessive. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,15 Section 1.80 of the Rules,16 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.17 In examining Salazar's petition, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-57A1.html
      • of the Act and our rules, we find that Qwest is apparently liable for each of its 46 apparent violations of section 252(a)(1) of the Act, for a total proposed forfeiture of $9 million. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 53. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Qwest Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9 million for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within thirty days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-88A1.html
      • 60153 Licensee of Station WXDX-FM, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 7, 2004 Released: April 8, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing program material during two segments of the ``Howard Stern Show'' on April 9, 2003, that apparently violate the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-89A1.html
      • on May 30 and on June 1, 2001, was patently offensive and therefore apparently violated the Commission's indecency rule.7 The NAL proposed a monetary forfeiture penalty of Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00) based upon KNDD(FM)'s broadcast of apparently indecent material on two separate occasions. 4. On February 27, 2002, Entercom filed a response to the Bureau's NAL8 in accordance with Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules.9 Entercom contended that there is a clear absence of any sexual or excretory context or import in the complained-of material because there is no discussion about the sexual or excretory functions of the male genitalia.10 Thus, Entercom argued that the material was not patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-95A1.html
      • After receiving a large number of consumer complaints against WCSS, the Enforcement Bureau, along with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, launched an investigation into the consumers' allegations of slamming. As a result of this investigation, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability on January 15, 2004, finding WCSS apparently liable for 13 slamming violations. 3. Pursuant to section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules,4 the Commission ordered WCSS to pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced 5 within 30 days of the NAL's release, i.e., on February 17, 2004.6 WCSS did not file a response to the NAL nor did it pay
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-9A1.html
      • Systems, Inc. has apparently violated section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders by changing the preferred telephone service carriers of 10 consumers on 13 occasions, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $560,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $560,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 35 17. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-04-348A1.html
      • in exchange for payment, and belie any claim that the announcements were aired on a gratuitous basis. In addition, the inclusion of the Star Cruise announcement in the programming supplied to the station was, according to Minority, based on ``oral barter or trade arrangement'' and thus supported by consideration.36 B. Proposed Action 14. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.37 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.38 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1029A1.html
      • marketing this product. 3 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1029A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1029A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1030A1.html
      • April 8, 2005). 2 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1030A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1030A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1031A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1031A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1031A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1033A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1033A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1033A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1034A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1034A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1034A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1035A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1035A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1035A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1036A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1036A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1036A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1037A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1037A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1037A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1053A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1053A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1053A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1055A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1055A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1055A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1059A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1059A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1059A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1081A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1081A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1081A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1087A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1087A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1087A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1088A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1088A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1088A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1090A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1090A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1090A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-109A1.html
      • assessing the forfeiture, the Commission failed to follow the requirements of its own rules and regulations. Finally, Barinowski claims that the Bureau failed to consider the Section 503(b) factors in determining the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Barinowski's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1104A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 12 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1104A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1104A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1107A1.html
      • Bureau (March 30,2005). 2 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1107A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1107A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-110A1.html
      • that it completed the change from frequency 151.790 MHz to 151.805 MHz on March 1, 2004. Finally, Mitchell requests a payment plan in the event that the forfeiture amount is not reduced or cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mitchell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1155A1.html
      • 4 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' 5 Response at 2. 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1155A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1155A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1367A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1367A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1367A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1388A1.html
      • frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. 2.803(g). 4 47 C.F.R. 2.807(d). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1388A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1388A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1511A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that ACC Licensee, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1512A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that NBC Telemundo License Co. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 19. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1513A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Fox Television Stations, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1595A1.html
      • in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.2 On March 2, 2005, WBLT submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining WBLT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1597A1.html
      • ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act.2 Mr. McKinney filed a response to the NAL on May 6, 2005, requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. McKinney's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1599A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Dacres.2 Mr. Dacres has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Samuel E. Dacres IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating an FM radio transmitter without a license in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1611A1.html
      • the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act.3 Pembroke filed a response to the NAL dated April 14, 2005 requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pembroke's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1621A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1621A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1621A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1622A1.html
      • Rules provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. 2.803(g). 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1622A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1622A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1623A1.html
      • Universal had been using under the service agreement. Universal claims that neither vendor advised Universal that it was required to acquire a license to operate the portable transceivers on the frequency 465.63125 MHz. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1625A1.html
      • by an officer or director of Source. Source also must submit an affidavit, signed by an officer or director of Source, notifying the Commission when the structure has been brought into full compliance with the rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Source USA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.4(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to Commission correspondence. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Source shall file the plan described in paragraph 3 above within ten (10) days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1631A1.html
      • expired on April 29, 2004 until the STA request was granted on January 4, 2005. During those eight months, WRN acted in apparent violation of Sections 301 of the Act and 25.102 of the Rules by willfully14 and repeatedly15 operating the earth station without Commission authority. 6. The guidelines contained in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,16 and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules17 specify a base forfeiture amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1633A1.html
      • ordinarily would warrant a proposed forfeiture above the base amount, we find that those factors are counter- balanced here by the licensee's good-faith efforts to remedy the situation prior to our initiation of this investigation.33 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,34 and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,35 that Capstar TX Limited Partnership is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Capstar TX
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-163A1.html
      • 4438 (Priv. Rad. Bur. 1994) (``Vaughn''), in support of its contention that the location at Parkview House site was within the Commission's authorized area of operation for its licensed coordinates III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Statcom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1666A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1666A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1666A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1684A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Kennedy.2 Mr. Kennedy has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Scottie E. Kennedy IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully operating a radio transmitter without a license in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1685A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Vector.2 Vector has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Vector Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on its antenna structures in violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1686A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mega Communications.2 Mega Communications has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Mega Communications of St. Petersburg, Licensee L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure painting and lighting specifications in violation of Section 17.21 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1701A1.html
      • the Act.24 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''25 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')26 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,27 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Hawking imported and sold 7,520 units. We estimate that Hawking's economic gain from marketing 7,520 devices that retailed for about $75.00 each was, conservatively, at least
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1708A1.html
      • small market whose limited resources make a $3,000 forfeiture a significant obligation.'' In support, Brown Broadcasting submits federal income tax returns for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 as required by Paragraph 11 of the NAL. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Brown Broadcasting's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1709A1.html
      • based upon inability to pay, Mr. Clay seeks reconsideration and further reduction on the basis of changed circumstances. Specifically, he claims that his amount of monthly income has been reduced as a result of divorce.3 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Mr. Clay's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1711A1.html
      • KHRA's main studio when the inspection was conducted. Trade Center also argues that the record does not support the Commission's finding that Trade Center's violation of the public file rule was willful or repeated. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Trade Center's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1783A1.html
      • Forfeiture Order should be affirmed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act8 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,9 the petition for reconsideration filed by Clamor Broadcasting Network, Inc., on August 20, 2004, IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1791A1.html
      • telephone dialing systems to contact, for example, emergency telephone lines, hospital patient rooms, and multi?line businesses. 2 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(4). 3 Although one complainant lists ``contacts.com'' as the company involved, Commission staff was redirected to your company's website upon entering the internet address ``contacts.com.'' See Complaint filed by R. Eaves, November 29, 2004. 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1791A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1791A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1817A1.html
      • action taken long prior to the issuance of the NAL,'' the applicable law does not support the proposed forfeiture and that such a forfeiture would be contrary to ``sound public policy'' and ``would fail to serve any public purpose.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,10 Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Lotus' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-18A1.html
      • whether these rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated.3 REVIEW OF RELEVANT RULES The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses forfeiture penalties applicable to common carriers [and others]. These rules are not competition-related, and thus we cannot find that they are ``no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition.'' Accordingly, we find that these rules should be retained. Rules 1.711 through 1.736 set forth the procedures for formal complaint proceedings against common carriers.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1907A1.html
      • act or failure to act.16 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''17 10. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.18 QuickLink's failure to respond occurred in the face of numerous attempts by Bureau staff to call QuickLink's attention to the importance of responding to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1923A1.html
      • of the Enforcement Bureau. The above- captioned matter should have been closed with Mega Communications' payment of the $10,000 proposed forfeiture. Therefore, we cancel the $10,000 forfeiture issued to Mega Communications in the June 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended,4 and Sections 0.11, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4) and 1.113 of the Commission's Rules,5 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) issued to Mega Communications of St. Petersburg Licensee, L.L.C. in the June 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order IS CANCELED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mega
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1949A1.html
      • statements, HBS has neither submitted, nor cited to, any other evidence supporting its claim of financial hardship.14 However, in recognition of the fact that HBS has maintained heretofore a good overall compliance record, we will reduce the forfeiture from $10,000 to $8,000.15 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act16, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,17 Hispanic Broadcast System, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements in violation of section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules and section 399B of the Act. 6. Payment of the forfeiture must be made in the manner provided for in Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2014A1.html
      • based on Noe's overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules, we find that a reduction in the forfeiture amount to the base amount of $4,000 per violation is warranted, for a total forfeiture of $8,000.42 IV.ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,43 Noe Corp., L.L.C., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules44 within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2036A1.html
      • ``dormant'' corporation. 6 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Martin Osterman, Product Manager, TeleRadio AB (November 4, 2004). 7 See Letter from Martin Osterman, Product Manager, TeleRadio AB, to Yasin Ozer, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 15, 2004). 8 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(c)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2036A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2036A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2043A1.html
      • exemplary efforts to ensure that KCDZ(FM) was able to receive local primary stations in two counties, while situated in an area that the relevant County EAS Plan describes as having ``difficult coverage,'' we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432900010, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Morongo Basin Broadcasting Corporation, 6448 Hallee Road #5, Joshua Tree, California 92252. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rebecca L. Dorch Regional
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2060A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mr. Loflin.3 Mr. Loflin has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 David M. Loflin IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating a station on an unauthorized channel in violation of Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2064A1.html
      • operating equipment to the San Francisco agents and then surrendered his amateur license to the Commission. He also argues that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture and, to support this claim, supplies three years of tax records. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Silva's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2065A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($25,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a) of the Rules.3 On June 6, 2005, Twenty-One Sound submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture.4 III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Twenty-One Sound's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2069A1.html
      • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.6 On June 17, 2005, Hightech submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Hightech's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2228A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2228A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2228A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2234A1.html
      • of KLMO. Pilgrim asserts that the Bureau failed to give adequate weight to this information. Pilgrim also cites Renaissance Radio, Inc.,7 in further support of its request for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4.The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Pilgrim's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2235A1.html
      • KWYD had lost money each year, except for 2000, when it was marginally profitable. Pilgrim also cites Renaissance Radio, Inc.,7 in further support of its request for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Pilgrim's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2236A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2236A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2236A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2237A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2237A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2237A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2238A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2238A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2238A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2258A1.html
      • 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that they provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $24,000 for each station. 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Waterman Broadcasting, Corp., IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $24,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2264A1.html
      • under penalty of perjury, and signed by an officer or director of the declarant. WKLC should note that its noncompliance could result in enforcement action. Further, we ADMONISH WKLC, Inc. for its failure to report the replacement of its original antenna structure. I.C. Ordering Clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432340002, IS CANCELED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WKLC, Inc. is hereby ADMONISHED for its failure to report the replacement of its original antenna structure. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, WKLC, Inc. must submit the report described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2318A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission _________________________ 1 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2318A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2318A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2352A1.html
      • Commission (December 12, 2004). 3 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Division, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Joe Renzhou Yao (June 8, 2005). 4 Id. 5 See Letter from Joe Renzhou Yao, Owner of Joe's Photo Auction, to Neal McNeil, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (June 28, 2005). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2352A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2352A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2364A1.html
      • the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules.2 On June 15, 2005, Mr. Vera-Maury submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Vera-Maury's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2365A1.html
      • ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act.2 Mr. Riels filed a response to the NAL on June 8, 2005, requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Riels' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2366A1.html
      • inability to pay and thus no basis for reduction of the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Clephar's petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,6 Mr. Clephar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2367A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mr. Guerrero.2 Mr. Guerrero has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Rafael C. Guerrero IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to maintain operational EAS equipment at KRSC(AM), Othello, Washington, in violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules.5 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2374A1.html
      • Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Bee Taxi Corporation.2 Bee Taxi Corporation has neither paid the NAL nor filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Bee Taxi Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2375A1.html
      • of the violation, and payment of the forfeiture would impose a substantial financial hardship. Snow Hill submitted financial statements in supplements filed on November 4, 2004, March 28, 2005, and April 20, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2376A1.html
      • not have a license; (5) he ceased operating after the FCC agents inspected the station and provided him a warning letter; and (6) he is financially unable to pay the full forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2382A1.html
      • little doubt that Gibson was fully aware that the R-FM25B-WT and R-FM100B-WT have not been authorized for sale in the United States. 9. We find, accordingly, that Gibson apparently marketed two models of uncertified FM broadcast transmitters in the United States, in willful14 and repeated15 violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. 10. Section 1.80(d) of the Rules provides in pertinent part that: No forfeiture penalty shall be imposed upon any person under this section, if such person does not hold a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, and if such person is not an applicant for a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, unless, prior to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2392A1.html
      • to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $20,000 for QuickLink's failure to respond to a Commission communication as set forth in the QuickLink NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that QuickLink Telecom, Inc., SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2394A1.html
      • shoot - indoors, outdoors, run-and-gun, hand-held, b-roll, news, sports, documentaries - it makes no difference.'' 2An intentional radiator is ``A device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. 15.3 (o). 3See 47 C.F.R. 2.1205. The specific import conditions are set forth in Section 2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 2.1204. 4See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2394A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2394A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-23A1.html
      • July 30, 2004, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to PSN.2 PSN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act3, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Pacific Spanish Network, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2429A1.html
      • the Act.14 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,17 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Here, Inteligain marketed, and apparently continues to market, equipment in a manner inconsistent with a condition in its equipment authorized intended to ensure compliance with RF exposure limits. Given
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2665A1.html
      • prior record of violation with the Commission. FMG petitioned for reconsideration stating that the Order failed to properly address FMG's arguments concerning the conditions of the tower, the agent's distance from the structure and other important facts which, in FMG's view, undermine the validity of the NAL. 4. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,4 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines6 (``Forfeiture Guidelines'') set forth the Commission's standards for review of a petition for reconsideration of the imposition of a forfeiture for a rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2679A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2679A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2679A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2720A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Mr. Sims.3 Mr. Sims has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 Russell A. Sims, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for operating a citizens band radio station without Commission authorization and refusing to make his station available for inspection in violation of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2721A1.html
      • and repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.1125 of the Rules.2 Clamor filed a response to the NAL requesting reconsideration of the proposed forfeiture on December 22, 2004.3 Clamor's response included additional information and statements regarding the August inspection. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Clamor's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2722A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Ms. Salazar.2 Ms. Salazar has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Maria L. Salazar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(e) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2754A1.html
      • In its Petition, CB has offered no new evidence nor cited any relevant case law to support a cancellation of the Forfeiture Order. We have reviewed carefully CB's arguments pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),26 and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''),27 and Section 1.80 of the Rules.28 We conclude that CB's Petition should be denied and the Forfeiture Order affirmed, finding that CB willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. As the forfeiture amount has already been reduced from the original amount set out in the NAL, we determine
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2785A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2785A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2785A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-287A1.html
      • 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages identified above. We have further determined that Septic Safety is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $14,500. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5),24 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Septic Safety, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $14,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2910A1.html
      • record, however, reveals no other sanctions for violation of Commission rules. In light of KOFI's history of overall compliance prior to this broadcast,21 we will lower the $6,000 forfeiture to the statutory base of $4,000.22 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,23 KOFI, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules24 within thirty (30) days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2973A1.html
      • forfeiture amount from $25,000 to $18,000, because it concluded the station's public file was incomplete, rather than unavailable. The Enforcement Bureau received Twenty-One Sound's petition for reconsideration on August 26, 2005, requesting further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, 6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Twenty-One Sound's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2994A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2994A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2994A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2995A1.html
      • its licenses expired) until February 14, 2005 (when its STA was granted). Thus, it appears that SDN violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file renewal applications, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its stations without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act,15 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,16 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2998A1.html
      • energy on these restricted frequencies. 5 See Public Notice, Report No. 2662, released June 25, 2004, regarding RM-11002. 6 See Order In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking of the Part 15 Regulations and Request for Waiver of the Part 2 Marketing Regulations, RM-11002, FCC 05-136, 20 FCC Rcd. 12256 (2005). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 2.807(d). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2998A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2998A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3004A1.html
      • an instrument of authorization, Journal apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Journal also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by filing its license renewal application on July 27, 2005, more than one year beyond the 30-day requirement prescribed by the Rules. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act,15 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,16 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3025A1.html
      • station is licensed to operate with a directional antenna (ODD model ODD930823IG) and an ERP of 34 watts horizontal and 100 watts vertical. The station owner admitted that the station installed the non-directional antenna with no vertical component earlier in April. 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Family's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3063A1.html
      • a violation of a Commission order, subjecting it to possible enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures. The Federal Express delivery tracking system indicates that the follow-up letter was received by Shenzhen Ruidian Communication on June 13, 2005. To date, the Bureau has not received any response from Shenzhen Ruidian Communication. III. DISCUSSION 6. Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.5 In exercising our forfeiture authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3123A1.html
      • not engage in interference; that the actual motive behind the NAL is to silence his messages in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and that he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL.11 III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,12 Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.14 In examining Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3124A1.html
      • emergency existed; that he did not transmit for approximately 40 minutes;7 that he did not jam or interfere with any emergency communication; and that he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL.8 III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In examining Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3125A1.html
      • Connex models, because they are Amateur Radios. On July 27, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau rejected Hightech's arguments and released the Forfeiture Order. The Enforcement Bureau received Hightech's petition for reconsideration on August 30, 2005, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, 8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Hightech's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3192A1.html
      • act or failure to act.28 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''29 11. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.30 Blackstone's failures to respond occurred despite attempts by Bureau staff to call Blackstone's attention to the importance of responding to LOIs. We find that the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3222A1.html
      • amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.3 On September 15, 2005, Arcom submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Arcom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3236A1.html
      • ASR's for antenna structure #1005017. Schikora filed a response to the NAL on January 7, 2005 (``Response'').5 Schikora's Response consists solely of a print-out of his FCC Registration Number registration form along with a note stating ``proof of registration.'' III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Schikora's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3246A1.html
      • dollars ($4,000) to Classic for violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on the unauthorized frequency of 31.02 MHz.4 Classic filed a response to the NAL on April 13, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Classic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3248A1.html
      • since 1999 and had received three subsequent requests for information regarding the antenna structure registration. On April 7, 2005, Forsberg submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Forsberg's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3269A1.html
      • and that it believed in good faith that it had updated all of its ASR's. Finally, ACS argues that it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules and, therefore, is entitled to a reduced forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining ACS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3270A1.html
      • accurate; that the fence surrounding the KULE(AM) tower was effective; that the size of the gap in the fence is overstated in the NAL; and that, given Butterfield's recent compliance history with KULE(AM), a $7,000 forfeiture is not warranted. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Butterfield's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-333A1.html
      • dollars ($21,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules.2 Halifax filed a response to the NAL requesting partial cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture on January 7, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Halifax's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-336A1.html
      • to the contrary, we decline to cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture on the basis of inability to pay. 12. We have considered the forfeiture amount and we have examined Best Wok's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,8 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Best Wok willfully violated Section 301 of the Act and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act9 and Section 1.106
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-344A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-344A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-344A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-345A1.html
      • 25, 2004, B.E.A. obtained an equipment authorization from the Commission. 6. In the instant case, we find that B.E.A. apparently willfully14 and repeatedly15 violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by importing and marketing in the United States intentional radiator devices prior to obtaining Commission equipment authorization. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules16 authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act.17 In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-346A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-346A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-346A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-349A1.html
      • ensuring that any material broadcast in a foreign language conforms to the requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules.27 To the extent that HBS has ignored its duties in this regard, we remind it to take appropriate care in the future to avoid further lapses of this type. B. Proposed Action 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.28 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.29 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-350A1.html
      • that it has discharged that engineer and replaced him with a qualified individual. Kimtron maintains that it has a history of compliance with Commission Rules and requests that the proposed forfeiture be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Kimtron's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-363A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mr. Westcott.2 Mr. Westcott has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Paul D. Westcott IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to Commission requests for information about his station. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-425A1.html
      • cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. Mr. Salter, who asserts he is retired and living on Social Security and fixed retirement benefits, provided copies of his tax returns to support his claim. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, 7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining Mr. Salter's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-449A1.html
      • sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $20,000 for BigZoo's failure to respond to a Commission communication as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that BigZoo.com Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-455A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Midwest Televison, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained in Appendix A.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-456A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $25,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-457A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained in Appendix
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-475A1.html
      • of petitions for reconsideration of forfeiture orders) (2001) (``EZ Sacramento''), recon. dismissed, 16 FCC Rcd 15,605 (2001). 9Infinity Radio Operations, Inc., Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, filed September 4, 2003 (``NAL Response''). 10Id. at 2-3. 11Petition at 1-7. 12NAL Response at 3-4. 13Petition at 6-7. 1447 U.S.C. 504(c). 15The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,102-04, 32-36 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Report and Order''); on recon., 15 FCC Rcd 303, 303-305, 3-5 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Reconsideration Order'') (collectively, the ``Forfeiture Policy Statement Rulemaking''). In the instant proceeding, Infinity did not mention the rulemaking disposition of this precise issue until
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-480A1.html
      • it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture; it has no other violations of record; and as a small business, the fine is disproportionate to the size of its business. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining O'hana's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-483A1.html
      • Dead Air's response, and the specific record before us, we conclude that the proposed monetary forfeiture against Dead Air should be cancelled, and Dead Air should be admonished for its violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the proposed $3,000 forfeiture issued to Dead Air Broadcasting, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dead Air Broadcasting, Inc., IS ADMONISHED for failure to register its tower. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Jo Ann Juliano,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-510A1.html
      • by on air radio personality to crisis hotline without prior notification of intent to broadcast, Bureau proposed base forfeiture amount for section 73.1206 violation notwithstanding licensee's claim that this was an ``isolated incident'' and that the licensee had taken remedial measures). 16See Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19744-45, 6. 17See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 18See Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19745 & n. 17. 19Petition at 6-8. 2047 U.S.C. 504(c). 21See, e.g., Saga Communications of Iowa, Inc., Notices of Violation, EB-01-KC-228 to EB-01-KC-233 (Enf. Bur. Kansas
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-52A1.html
      • a petition for reconsideration (``petition'') of the Forfeiture Order. In the petition, Mrs. Ortiz does not contest the violations; however, she seeks reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order on the basis of financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Mrs. Ortiz's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-534A1.html
      • pursuing possible additional sanctions against Gerritsen.13 ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, Jack Gerritsen's Petition for Reconsideration, filed November 2, 2004, IS HEREBY DENIED. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.14 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-59A1.html
      • ) Facility ID No. 48975 FRN No. 0001716588 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 13, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that NOE Corp. LLC (``NOE''), licensee of Station KNOE-TV, Monroe, Louisiana, twice recorded telephone conversations for broadcast without informing parties to the calls of its intention to broadcast the conversations, in apparent willful and repeated violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.2 Based on our review of the facts, we conclude that NOE
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-60A1.html
      • Ohio Facility ID No. 59441 FRN No. 003957487 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 13, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company (``Scripps Howard''), licensee of Station WEWS-TV, Cleveland, Ohio, recorded a telephone conversation for broadcast and twice aired a portion of that recording without informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.2 Based upon our
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-613A1.html
      • connection to the signal leakage violation. Finally, Mallard argues the Commission is barred from making a claim against the estate because ``the opportunity for asserting certain post-administrative expenses, those arising after May 9, 2003, expired on March 31, 2004.''11 III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,12 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),13 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mallard's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-614A1.html
      • 31, 2005.3 The Anchorage Resident Agent granted the extension of time until January 31, 2005.4 Coleman, however, has failed to file a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Chester P. Coleman c/o American Radio Brokers, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 73.1125(a) and (e), 73.1740(a)(1) and 73.1745(b) of the Rules. 5 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-621A1.html
      • pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act,5 ARB, Inc. to report to the Enforcement Bureau, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order, whether it has achieved compliance with Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc., d/b/a/ Radio Station KFFR 1020, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.48(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 6 5. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, American Radio Brokers, Inc.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-624A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14040, 14014, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-624A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-624A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-634A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-634A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-634A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-680A1.html
      • the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. M.B. Communications filed a response to the NAL on August 31, 2004. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-68A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14040, 14014, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-68A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-68A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-702A1.html
      • 21 times per day over a 10-week period. Therefore, we find that Leighton apparently violated section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly broadcasting station identification announcements that did not include the station's call letters immediately followed by the station's community of license. 5. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')5 and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules6 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.7 Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Leighton willfully and repeatedly broadcast station identification announcements in apparent violation of section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules. Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-703A1.html
      • KZMN(FM), Kalispell, Montana ) FRN No. 0005072467 Facility ID No. 35369 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 17, 2005 Released: March 17, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that KOFI, Inc. (``KOFI''), licensee of Station KZMN(FM), Kalispell, Montana, apparently willfully violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.1206, by broadcasting, and recording for later broadcast, a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so.2 For the following reasons, based upon our review
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-725A1.html
      • ensuring that any material broadcast in a foreign language conforms to the requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules.23 To the extent that Caguas has overlooked its duties in this regard, we remind it to take appropriate care in the future to avoid further violations of this type. B. Proposed Action 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.24 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.25 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-78A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-78A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-78A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-85A1.html
      • financial documentation provided, we conclude that payment of the proposed forfeiture would impose financial hardship on Mr. Goodman. In view of Mr. Goodman's extreme financial distress, cancellation of the $10,000 forfeiture assessment is warranted.6 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the September 14, 2004, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Milton Goodman IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Milton Goodman,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-04-297A1.html
      • we are unable to determine that it cannot pay the forfeiture amount and we will not reduce the forfeiture on the basis of A-O's inability to pay. 19. We have examined A-O's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,30 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,31 as well. As a result of our review, we again conclude that A-O willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.1310, 11.35, 73.1125, and 73.1400 of the Rules and that the appropriate forfeiture amount is $25,000. IV. Ordering Clauses 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act32 and Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-11A1.html
      • Licensee of Stations ) Facility ID No. 67071 KGBT-FM, McAllen, Texas KROM(FM), San Antonio, Texas NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 12, 2005 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,2 we find that Univision Radio License Corporation (``Univision Radio License) and Tichenor License Corporation (``Tichenor License''), licensees of the above-captioned stations, apparently violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.1206, by broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so.3 Based on our review of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-145A1.html
      • Commission (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by InPhonic, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.83 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 34. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,84 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,85 that InPhonic is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $819,905 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,86 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, InPhonic
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-146A1.html
      • order Teletronics to file with USAC within thirty days all Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date it began providing telecommunications service in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 39. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,87 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,88 that Teletronics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $692,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,89 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-147A1.html
      • willfully and repeatedly failed to respond to the Bureau's LOIs. Specifically with respect to the LOI issued August 18, 2004, Carrera provided only an untimely and partial response and with respect to the LOIs issued November 5, 2004 and January 21, 2005, Carrera never responded in any manner, despite repeated attempts by Bureau staff to elicit responses from Carrera.84 Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.85 However, misconduct of this type warrants an upward adjustment because it exhibits a disregard for the Commission's authority that cannot be tolerated, and, more importantly, it threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to adequately investigate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-156A1.html
      • failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by TMI, in accordance with the agency's red light rules.58 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Telecom Management, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $280,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,59 within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-157A1.html
      • failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by OCMC, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.42 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that OCMC, Inc.is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,761 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,43 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-167A1.html
      • of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of BCE Nexxia's operating authority, including disqualification of BCE Nexxia's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission.58 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that BCE Nexxia is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $282,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-168A1.html
      • USAC within thirty days all Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets and amended Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date that Telecom House commenced providing telecommunications services in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 36. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,94 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,95 that Telecom House is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $529,300 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,96 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-185A1.html
      • CSII to file with USAC within thirty days all annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date that CSII commenced providing telecommunications services in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 31. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,76 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,77 that CSII is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $462,638 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,78 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, CSII
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-186A1.html
      • (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by Global Teldata, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.82 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 31. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,83 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,84 Global Teldata II, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,85 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-209A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Maria L. Salazar of the Commission's March 16, 2004 Order for the NAL/Acct. referenced above IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN. 4. Payment of the $15,500 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-47A1.html
      • our national do-not-call requirements, as described above. We have further determined that Dynasty is apparently liable in the amount of $11,000 for each of 70 violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, for a total of $770,000. 37. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $770,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 64.1200(c)(2) as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-102A1.html
      • and its attorney, James R. Cooke, Harris Beach, L.L.P., 1776 K Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 M.J. Phillips Communications, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 11051 (Enf. Bur. 2004). 247 C.F.R. 73.1560(a)(1), 11.35(a), 11.52(d) and 17.4(a). 3 47 U.S.C. 503(b). 4 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D). See also note to Section 1.80(b)(4), Section II, Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures, Downward Adjustment Criteria. 5AM stations are required to maintain antenna input power levels ``as near as is practicable'' to, and not less than 90 percent or more than 105 percent of, their authorized power level. See 47 C.F.R. 73.1560(a)(1). Station WJJL's antenna input power levels exceeded its authorized power limit of 1000
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1045A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Cibao Express. Cibao Express has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Cibao Express - Car & Limo Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. S 1.903(a). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1046A1.html
      • other cases in which $4,000 forfeitures have been assessed. WTMR further describes its violation as a "comparatively minor infraction" and points to remedial efforts it has taken since the issuance of the NAL. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1084A1.html
      • to Oneida Air Systems, Inc. (January 23, 2006). Response at 6. Id. Id. at 12. Id. 47 C.F.R. S 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an intentional radiator as "a device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S 15.19(a). 47 C.F.R. S 15.21. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). It should be noted that unfamiliarity with the Act or Rules requirements does excuse past violations. See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc.. FCC 06-30 P 16 (rel. March 14, 2006); see also Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P 5 (1993). Additionally, corrective measures taken after Commission notification, or initiation of investigation into, does not excuse past violations
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1091A1.html
      • in the amount of $13,000 to El Dorado. Despite repeated contacts by the Los Angeles Office, El Dorado has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, El Dorado 900, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1176A1.html
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 20. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred following two extension requests by ITE of the required response deadline, repeated
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1189A1.html
      • until January 10, 2006. By operating its earth station for approximately nine months without an instrument of authorization, Gilmore apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Gilmore also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-122A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 2 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1). 3 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-124A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 2 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1). 3 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1267A1.html
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Universal's failures to respond occurred despite Bureau staff's repeated attempts to call Universal's attention to the importance of responding to the LOI. We find that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1286A1.html
      • ) FRN No. 0001587971 Orlando, Florida ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 16, 2006 Released: June 20, 2006 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station WRUM(FM), Orlando, Florida, broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1298A1.html
      • the United States Postal Service, and by hand by the Idaho County Sheriff's Department. Despite these contacts, Scrugham has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, William W. Scrugham, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1304A1.html
      • "include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement or constitute a telephone solicitation"; 4) to persons "with whom the caller has an established business relationship at the time the call is made"; and 5) "made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization." 7. The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining ESI's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such matters as justice may require. 8.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1324A1.html
      • deploying unauthorized 98 cm antennas, violated the Commission's two degree spacing policy and thereby creates the potential for causing interference. Thus, all three modifications affected the parameters or terms and conditions of AGF's authorizations. Therefore, AGF's failure to obtain prior Commission approval before implementing the modifications violated Section 25.117(a) of the Rules. 2. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1325A1.html
      • of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission ...." A violation resulting from an inadvertent mistake or a failure to become familiar with the FCC's requirements is considered a willful violation. 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1328A1.html
      • and that the Commission's licensing scheme for low power FM radio stations is "egregiously unconstitutional." 916 Radio also states that it does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture and requests that the forfeiture be reduced or cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1330A1.html
      • equipment was at all times fully operational; that the station had most of the required logging slips; and that if someone had not "jostled loose" the plug on the EAS receiver, the station would have been in full compliance. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1334A1.html
      • are not CB transceivers. Specifically, TravelCenters argues that the Galaxy transceivers are not covered by the Commission's definition of CB transmitter, and that the Commision's effort to clarify this definition was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-136A1.html
      • under the Act.20 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 12. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')22 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,23 the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ramsey marketed two models of unauthorized broadcast transmitters (FM35WT and FM100BWT) and two models of unauthorized external RF power amplifiers (PA100 and LPA1WT). Ramsey's marketing of each of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1430A1.html
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1430 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1430 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1431A1.html
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1431 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1431 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1433A1.html
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1433 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1433 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1436A1.html
      • Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. S 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(e)(4) defines marketing as the "sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1436 3 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1436 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://store.ovislinkonline.com/info.html References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1436A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1436A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1437A1.html
      • to consider Mr. Desinor's petition for reconsideration and it will be dismissed as untimely. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Act and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, Jhony Desinor's petition for reconsideration IS DISMISSED as untimely. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check, money order or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1442A1.html
      • violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that AboCom's conduct has continued over a period that began on May 12, 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to AboCom's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-144A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Simon.2 Simon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Sylvane Simon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1459A1.html
      • in this case. Specifically, we conclude that the violation occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive or to favor a particular contestant or class of contestants. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that NM Licensing, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, NM Licensing, LLC
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1467A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1467 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1467 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1467A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1467A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1536A1.html
      • dismiss its Petition. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Arcom Communications' Petition for Reconsideration of the December 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order IS hereby DENIED. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1537A1.html
      • 25, 2006, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to New Life. New Life filed a response to the NAL dated May 25, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining New Life's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1564A1.html
      • 2005, until May 26, 2006. By operating its earth station for one year without an instrument of authorization, Lazer apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Lazer also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1604A1.html
      • the Forfeiture Order, but seeks a remission or reduction of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay. In support of this request, M.B. Communications submits its tax returns for the past three years. III. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.B. Communications' petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1605A1.html
      • him is preemptive, unauthorized and unconstitutional since the Commission has not responded to his request for emergency authority; that his Constitutional rights are being infringed; and that no court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Commission's forfeiture procedures. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Britcher's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1606A1.html
      • him is preemptive, unauthorized and unconstitutional since the Commission has not responded to his request for emergency authority; that his Constitutional rights are being infringed; and that no court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Commission's forfeiture procedures. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Duncan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1607A1.html
      • or a Telecommunication Certification Body, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. S 2.907. Keymark was issued a certification for the PC Defender Screen Lock on December 23, 2003 under FCC ID: PG8KW101T. Keymark was issued a certification for the Wireless Separation Alarm on June 3, 2002 under FCC ID: PG8101T01. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1607A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1607A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1646A1.html
      • are committed knowingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Intelsat apparently provided to the Commission in conjunction with its August 17, 2005, Fleet Management Notice material factual information that was incorrect and/or misleading without having a reasonable basis for making the representations contained therein, in violation of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. 12. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentations or lack of candor is the statutory maximum or, in this case, $11,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1650A1.html
      • June 5, 2006, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Gilmore. Gilmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gilmore Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 25.102(a) and 25.121(e) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1665A1.html
      • inspect it and who came to the transmitter shed only after the agent contacted him. This minimal presence clearly did not satisfy the requirement for a meaningful presence at the main studio. We affirm, therefore, the Forfeiture Order's determination that Evangelism violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules. C. Downward Adjustment Factors 1. Background 10. The Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules permit downward adjustment of forfeitures on the basis of a minor violation, good faith or voluntary disclosure, history of overall compliance or inability pay as well as other factors within the discretion of the Commission and its staff. 1. Discussion a. History of Overall Compliance 11. Evangelism again seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture by arguing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1666A1.html
      • San Diego Office's NAL, were done in reliance on this advice and therefore the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled. Kojo attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1667A1.html
      • attach the report required by the San Diego Office concerning the location of its transmitter. Review of the Commission's records reveals that Anderson filed an application to modify the WQCT534 license by amending the coordinates of the transmitter location. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1668A1.html
      • Diego Office's NAL, were done in reliance on this advice and therefore the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled. More Enterprises attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1669A1.html
      • be cancelled. Uniradio attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001, along with an STA request filed by its counsel for another 23 GHz cross-border operator in 2001. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1670A1.html
      • is dismissed as untimely. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Act and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS DISMISSED as untimely. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1673A1.html
      • therefore, the NAL should be cancelled. Krieger also argues that it did not knowingly cause the transmissions to be repeated. Finally, Krieger asserts that it corrected the error as soon as it was notified by the San Diego Office. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1674A1.html
      • therefore, the NAL should be cancelled. Lamkin also argues that it did not knowingly cause the transmissions to be repeated. Finally, Lamkin asserts that it corrected the error as soon as it was notified by the San Diego Office. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1694A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1694 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1694 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1694A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1694A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1697A1.html
      • does not provide adequate financial documentation. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(j) of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. d/b/a/ Hobbytron.com, IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., d/b/a Hobbytron.com, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1717A1.html
      • Tampa Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $5,000 to Brasfield & Gorrie. Brasfield & Gorrie filed a response to the NAL dated March 23, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Brasfield & Gorrie's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1720A1.html
      • Rules, that the Petition for Extension of Time to file an Application for Review and the Petition for Acceptance of Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Lotus Communications Corporation, ARE DENIED, and the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Lotus Communications Corporation IS DISMISSED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Lotus Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, 17.48 and 17.49 of the Rules. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1726A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with prerecorded sales message to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1726 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1726 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1726A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1726A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1732A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1732 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1732 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1732A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1732A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1753A1.html
      • it had achieved compliance with Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. In a timely-filed request for reconsideration, FFP notified the Commission that the tower had been demolished on September 14, 2004, and it further requested that the Forfeiture Order be reconsidered. III. discussion 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1754A1.html
      • the violations, states that it has made efforts to correct the violations, and requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture due to its "spotless track record" and "many years of untarnished service." III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining 127 Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1783A1.html
      • and dated November 4, 2004, and December 4, 2004 ("Petitions"). Both Petitions requested reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. Mr. Konarz's Petitions acknowledged all of the violations and stated that they had been corrected. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Konarz's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1785A1.html
      • of Pacnet be turned over to Kremen. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, neither Pacnet, nor Kremen, has filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacnet Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1786A1.html
      • of Pacnet be turned over to Kremen. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, neither Pacnet, nor Kremen, has filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacnet Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1929A1.html
      • 9, 2005, West Coast submitted a response to the NAL requesting the ability to pay the forfeiture in installments. West Coast, however, failed to submit its good faith payment and its request for an installment payment plan was denied. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining West Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1930A1.html
      • On May 3, 2006, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $11,000 to Hacienda. Hacienda filed a response to the NAL dated June 1, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Hacienda's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1933A1.html
      • the radios offered for sale in its catalog, along with a copy of its catalog, and states that it has taken efforts to ensure that both its inventory of radios, and its catalog, comply with the Commission's labeling requirements. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1934A1.html
      • EAS system has been used infrequently, and that this infrequent use does not support the severity of the proposed forfeiture. Finally, the Petersons state that since the NAL was released, they have purchased and installed EAS equipment for KBSZ(AM). III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1935A1.html
      • and, to support this claim, supplies three years of tax records. Finally, if a forfeiture is imposed, Craig asks for a personal interview and/or a hearing with a Commission official at the nearest field office to discuss the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Craig's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1936A1.html
      • because "Loves' continuing violations of the equipment authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules." On March 9, 2006, Loves submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Loves' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1941A1.html
      • the NAL on May 15, 2006. Renda does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests a reduction in the forfeiture amount based on its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. Discussion 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1942A1.html
      • 2006, requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on their inability to pay and the fact that they have ceased operating the station. They do not otherwise dispute the findings in the NAL. III. Discussion 3. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1943A1.html
      • March 16, 2005; and (3) Trap Rock's history of compliance. Trap Rock also reports in its response to the NAL that the painting of the antenna structure was completed on September 16, 2005. III. Discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1978A1.html
      • of Section 73.49 of the Rules. In its response to the NAL, WSMN claims that the proposed forfeiture should be rescinded because WSMN is not the owner of the antenna structures at issue. III. Discussion 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2018A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Deroux. Deroux has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,Shawn Deroux IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2019A1.html
      • "[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The 1.2 GHz wireless camera purposely transmits RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2019 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2019 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.lightobject.com/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2019A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2019A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2040A1.html
      • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. On December 23, 2005, the Norfolk Office received TC's response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining TC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-204A1.html
      • for Mr. Saunders' violation of Section 17.51 of the Rules. On January 5, 2005, Mr. Saunders filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, which he supplemented on February 15, 2005. 9. III. DISCUSSION 10. 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Saunders' petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2063A1.html
      • appropriate agencies, completed the required documentation, and instituted new policies to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met before it constructs any new communications facilities. After receiving Panhandle's LOI response, the WTB referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. III. DISCUSSION 13. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2065A1.html
      • after the company realized its error, it contacted appropriate state and federal agencies, completed the required documentation, and provided further environmental training for its staff. After receiving T-Mobile's LOI response, the WTB referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. III. DISCUSSION 14. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-206A1.html
      • to dismantle the towers and would continue to update the Commission on its progress in curing the violation. On August 3, 2005, Cumulus informed the Enforcement Bureau that it had completed demolition of the subject towers on July 22, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In examining the Cumulus Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2084A1.html
      • rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages identified above. We have further determined that 1 Home Lending Corporation d.b.a. Capital Line Financial, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that 1 Home Lending Corporation d.b.a. Capital Line Financial, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of an APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-20A1.html
      • has never operated an unlicensed station on that frequency in Philadelphia, PA. He further states that nothing has ever been found at his house and there could be radio stations operating somewhere else in the vicinity of his house.4 III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-220A1.html
      • assessed.14 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 10. We have determined that Alltel has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Alltel apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,15 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,16 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,17 Alltel IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2210A1.html
      • committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that E-DA-HOE failed to properly broadcast station identification information, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules. 7. The statutory maximum forfeiture amount for each apparent violation in this case is $27,500. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the station identification rule is $1,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-221A1.html
      • assessed.14 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 10. We have determined that AT&T has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find AT&T apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,15 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,16 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,17 AT&T IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2229A1.html
      • did not violate the Section 302(b) of the Act or Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules, and that, if there is basis for a monetary forfeiture, the amount proposed by the NAL is excessive. III. DISCUSSION 2. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2259A1.html
      • 25, 2005, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $15,000 to A Radio. A Radio filed a response to the NAL dated January 11, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2273A1.html
      • ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 1.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.108, we hereby reconsider and amend, on our own motion, the October 13, 2006, Forfeiture Order, as explained herein. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shawn Deroux IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2286A1.html
      • July 17, 2006, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to AboCom. AboCom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, AboCom Systems, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2288A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Colon. Mr. Colon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Carlos M. Colon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2289A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Guzman. Mr. Guzman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Raul Guzman Reyes IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2290A1.html
      • amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. On October 13, 2006, the Tampa Office received CSN's response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining CSN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2301A1.html
      • has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Spectracom, LLC apparently willfully violated Section 1.948 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify and receive approval from the Commission for the assignment of three licenses prior to consummation of the transaction. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for engaging in an unauthorized transfer of substantial control of a licensee is $8,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2337A1.html
      • operating its PLMRS station for approximately 15 months without an instrument of authorization, Hare Planting apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Hare Planting also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2350A1.html
      • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2354A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at P5. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2354 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2354 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2354A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2354A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2472A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Venters. Mr. Venters has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Adam Troy Venters IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2473A1.html
      • Orleans Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $13,000 to Patrick. Patrick has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violation of Sections 17.4(a), 17.50, and 17.51 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2479A1.html
      • the NAL, GI Joe's does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation or reduction based on an inability to pay. In support of the request, GI Joe's submitted federal income tax returns. III. Discussion 3. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2480A1.html
      • NAL on September 28, 2006. In his response, Parks does not dispute the factual findings in the NAL, but requests a cancellation or reduction in the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2497A1.html
      • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 3. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, iBuypower marketed two unauthorized computer systems, one featuring the AMD Athlon-64 processor and one featuring the Athlon-64 X2 processor. iBuypower's marketing of each unauthorized computer system is a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2499A1.html
      • Communications Commission, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 22, 2006), at 1. Id. at 4. MSSI indicated, however, that the radio frequency identification tags utilized in the system, which are intentional radiators subject to the equipment certification requirements, were certified prior to marketing of the system. Id. at 2. Id. at 1. See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2499 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2499 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2499A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2499A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2537A1.html
      • NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On October 20, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received TC's petition for reconsideration on November 20, 2006, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining TC's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2549A1.html
      • the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. As discussed more fully below, Gambler filed a response to the NAL, seeking cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2553A1.html
      • Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Conrad. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Conrad has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Alan M. Conrad, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2554A1.html
      • Office in contacting CRC, that CRC fully cooperated with the Los Angeles Office in determining the reasons for the failures of the lighting on antenna structure #1019247, and that CRC has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining CRC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2588A1.html
      • one point in time had a license for 856.3625 MHz at another site in the same Las Vegas market; that the operation at the unauthorized location caused no known interference; and because of ESP's history of FCC rule compliance. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining ESP's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-323A1.html
      • however, JMK does dispute the Bureau's interpretation of a pertinent question asked by the Columbia Office in the LOI and JMK's response thereto, as well as the Bureau's handling of Mr. Hammond's declaration. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining JMK's petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-326A1.html
      • map,3 ``Public and Broadcasting'' manual (``manual'')4 and certain issues/programs lists.5 On April 18, 2003, the Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),6 proposing a $4,000 forfeiture against Lebanon for its apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules. The proposed forfeiture amount was downwardly adjusted from the $10,000 base forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules because the ``public inspection file contained a portion of the required items.''7 3. In a May 9, 2003, response to the NAL (``Response''), Lebanon sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Lebanon claimed that the contour map and manual were in the public inspection file but not shown to the agent, because the station employee who was present
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-410A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Marius.2 Marius has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Jean Harold Marius IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-474A1.html
      • in the amount of $10,000 to Pacific Spanish.2 Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Pacific Spanish has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (?Act?),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Pacific Spanish Network, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating a microwave radio station in Chula Vista, California, without a license, in violation of Section 301 of the Act.5 4.Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-476A1.html
      • Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to ICB.2 Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, ICB has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 International Customs Brokers, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating station WNTT908, in San Diego, California, on an unauthorized channel, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules.5 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-497A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Shenzhen Ruidian Communication. Shenzhen Ruidian Communication has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Shenzhen Ruidian Communication Co. Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau to provide certain information and documents. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-53A1.html
      • In his Response, Mollinedo states that he received bad advice from an associate regarding the need for a license to operate and that since he received the NAL, he no longer operates the radio equipment and has destroyed it. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Mollinedo's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-562A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Elf's willful or repeated violation of Section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Elf Painting and Wallpapering SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-587A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-587 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-587 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.theantennafarm.com/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-587A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-587A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-591A1.html
      • As previously noted, on January 18, 2006, OleumTech obtained an equipment authorization from the Commission. 8. In the instant case, we find that OleumTech apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator device prior to obtaining Commission equipment authorization. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-606A1.html
      • 2005, the Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $14,000 to Gibson. Gibson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-655A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). The term "facsimile broadcaster" means "a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee." 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-655 2 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-655 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-655A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-655A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-663A1.html
      • liability for violating Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules by transmitting references to his website could subject many amateur radio licensees to similar enforcement action merely for uttering a website address on their stations. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-664A1.html
      • on February 14, 2005 ("Response"). In the Response, Alpine states that the NAL is unenforceable against Alpine, and that the agent's assessments of the station's main studio were not consistent with the facts at the time of the inspection. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Alpine's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-749A1.html
      • any person." 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(7). 47 C.F.R. S 64.1601(e)(i). The rule's requirements are also fulfilled if the caller identification information substitutes the name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service telephone number. Id. 47 C.F.R. S 1601(e)(i). 47 C.F.R. S 1601(e)(ii). 47 C.F.R. S 1601(e)(iii). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-749 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-749 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-749A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-749A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-74A1.html
      • to any person.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(7). 12 47 C.F.R. 64.1601(e)(i). The rule's requirements are also fulfilled if the caller identification information substitutes the name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service telephone number. Id. 13 47 C.F.R. 1601(e)(i). 14 47 C.F.R. 1601(e)(ii). 15 47 C.F.R. 1601(e)(iii). 16 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-74A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-74A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-798A1.html
      • does not dispute its Rule violations but argues that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because it is now in compliance with the Rules and is unable to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the WLTH petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-841A1.html
      • Commission authority - from November 8, 2001 to January 11, 2006. Thus, it appears that NWN violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act,17 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,18 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-853A1.html
      • cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture. Hawking argues that the upward adjustment proposed in the NAL is excessive, that it promptly remedied the violations and that it has a history of overall compliance. III. discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-861A1.html
      • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Vitec marketed an intercom system that includes two types of uncertified transmitters (base station and mobile). Vitec's marketing of each uncertified transmitter is a separate violation. We find
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-867A1.html
      • ) Jacksonville, Florida FRN No. 0001587971 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 19, 2006 Released: April 20, 2006 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act") and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station WAWS(TV), Jacksonville, Florida, failed to conduct its "Win A Hot Rod for Dad" contest (the "Contest") substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, it appears that, contrary to the official announced rules of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-916A1.html
      • warranted. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 12. We have determined that Cbeyond has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Cbeyond apparently liable for $100,000. 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Cbeyond IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order, by failing to prepare and make available upon request a certificate that complies
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-933A1.html
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Unicom's failures to respond occurred despite multiple attempts by Bureau staff to call Unicom's attention to the importance of responding to LOIs. We find that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-936A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Corry. Corry has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Corry Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. S 11.35(a). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-937A1.html
      • in October 1999. Moreover, the record indicates, and Lamar does not dispute, that it did not transmit the required data (both the 911 caller's call back number and the cell site location) and thus did not provide compliant E911 Phase I service within six months of the Texas CSEC's valid request. 11. Under Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, any entity that willfully and repeatedly fails to comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator consciously and deliberately acted or failed to act, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's requirements,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-94A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,500 to GB Enterprises.3 GB Enterprises filed a response to the NAL on September 4, 2005, stating that it had corrected the violations cited in the NAL.4 III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining GB Enterprises' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-996A1.html
      • an instrument of authorization, Criswell apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Criswell also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by filing its license renewal application on December 7, 2005, more than eighteen months beyond the 30-day requirement prescribed by the Rules. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-999A1.html
      • Spectrum Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $5,600 to OleumTech. OleumTech has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, OleumTech Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-104A1.html
      • violated a Commission order by failing to provide the information and documents the Bureau directed it to provide. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $97,500 is warranted against LocateCell for its apparent willful or repeated violations of our directive. 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, LocateCell IS NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $97,500 for willfully or repeatedly failing to respond fully to the Bureau's subpoena, as required by the Citation. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-124A1.html
      • 73.1350(a), 73.1560(b) and (d), and 73.1745(a). 47 C.F.R. S 11.35. 47 C.F.R. S 73.1015. 47 U.S.C. S 312(d). 47 C.F.R. S 1.91(d). 47 U.S.C. S 309(e). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 73.1015. 47 C.F.R. SS 73.1350(a), 73.1560(b) and (d), 73.1745(a). 47 C.F.R. S 11.35(a). See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6). See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, P 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.91, S 1.221. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.21(b). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.221(c). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(a).
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-127A1.html
      • LPSI's apparent nonpayment violations. We thus find LPSI apparently liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $329,000 for its apparent willful and repeated failure to make contributions into the USF. 17. Although the Commission typically downward adjusts a proposed forfeiture when a company voluntarily discloses a violation of our rules, we decline to do so today. Specifically, pursuant to section 1.80(b)(4) of our rules, the Commission has adjusted downward proposed forfeitures where a target of an investigation voluntarily disclosed its violations prior to the initiation of any investigative or enforcement actions. When deciding to discount a proposed forfeiture because of a regulatee's voluntary disclosure, the Commission reasonably expects the regulatee to take swift and effective corrective actions, and to comply with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-128A1.html
      • (D.C. Cir. 1993). See, e.g., Greater Muskegon Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15464, 15472-73, PP 22-23 (1996). 47 U.S.C. SS 312(a) and (c). 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311 and 1.91(a). 47 C.F.R. S 1.91(c). 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(c). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.17, 1.65. See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, P 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. S 312(d). 47 C.F.R. S 1.91(d). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-128 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-128 References
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-136A1.html
      • to the Commission's "red light rule" as a result of any non-payment detailed above and the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by TMI in accordance with the Commission's rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S\001503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, TMI SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $237,992 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and Commission's rules. 25. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-138A1.html
      • totaling millions of dollars in withheld contributions. In light of the seriousness, duration and scope of the apparent violations, we find that the forfeiture of $1,133,761 proposed in the OCMC NAL is warranted. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, that OCMC, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $1,133,761 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 24. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-13A1.html
      • of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing unauthorized Class B digital devices in the United States. Within the last year specifically, which is the time period covered by this NAL, Behringer apparently marketed 50 models of unauthorized Class B digital devices in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture. 18. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Behringer's violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules were willful and repeated. 19. Section 1.80(b)(4)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-140A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 34 unsolicited advertisements to the 8 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that National Business Information Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $153,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), that National Business Information Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $153,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(3), and the related
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-151A1.html
      • to no objective criteria, and is not ... equivalent to a failure to comply with painting and lighting requirements." Radio X states further that the violation is "unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable on its face and as applied." We disagree. Neither the tower painting Rule set forth in Section 17.50 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between a painted or an unpainted antenna structure, and in both cases the base forfeiture amount of $10,000 is the starting point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. The Commission has explained that forfeiture amounts reflect "the degree of harm or potential for harm that may arise from the violation." As previously discussed, no tower
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-173A1.html
      • amended ("Act") and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration, Telemundo of Los Angeles License Corporation' petition for reconsideration, and Radio One Licenses, LLC's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order ARE DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 35. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-174A1.html
      • allows the application of the public MPE limits, the licensee must provide appropriate signs warning the public of excessive RFR levels. Americom did not provide such signs. 15. We have examined Americom's application for review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Americom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules and that the appropriate forfeiture amount is $10,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Americom's application for review of the Forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-17A1.html
      • need for and the legal basis of our ability, if any, to regulate in this area. We have invited the public to submit comments for our consideration, and are currently reviewing those comments and determining our next steps. IV. ordering clauses 233. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that NBC Telemundo License Co., licensee of Station KWHY-TV, Los Angeles, California is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $32,500 for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. S 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules by its October 9, 2004, broadcast of the movie "Con El Corazon En La Mano." 234.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-186A1.html
      • which payment was already due, by filing with each PSP any overdue call data reports for payphone calls it has completed, and for providing each PSP any overdue statements of an officer certifying payment accuracy and completeness. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 21. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $466,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-18A1.html
      • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 21, 2006 Released: March 15, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Tate issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the CBS Television Network ("CBS") affiliated stations and CBS owned-and-operated stations listed in Attachment A aired material that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Specifically, during the Our Sons and Daughters episode of the CBS program "Without a Trace" on December 31, 2004, at 9:00 p.m. in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-19A1.html
      • ) BOWL XXXVIII HALFTIME SHOW ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2006 Released: March 15, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Tate issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we impose a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $550,000 against CBS Corporation ("CBS"), as the licensee or the ultimate parent company of the licensees of the television stations listed in the Appendix ("CBS Stations"). We find that CBS violated 18 U.S.C. S 1464 and the Commission's rule regulating the broadcast of indecent material in its
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-22A1.html
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 98 unsolicited advertisements to the 37 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that First Choice Healthcare, Inc. is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $776,500. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), that First Choice Healthcare, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $776,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-30A1.html
      • of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Therefore, the forfeiture amount proposed herein takes into account the continuing nature San Jose's apparent violations, but relates to the company's marketing of Models RA-45, RA-46, RK-104 and RK-304 within the last year. 13. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the marketing of unauthorized equipment. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In determining the appropriate forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-37A1.html
      • been properly analyzed by the Commission." ACR also notes that it "has had a long history of compliance with Commission rules," and further contends that the "quantum" of the proposed forfeiture was unreasonable. III. discussion 8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-48A1.html
      • II service in response to valid PSAP requests in violation of Section 20.18(f) of the Rules in 41 instances. We note that 25 of these 50 violations occurred in markets in which DCS is the system licensee, and 25 occurred in markets in which ACC is the system licensee. B. Proposed Forfeiture 55. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, Dobson's apparent violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules were willful and repeated. 56. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-49A1.html
      • 2003 TRS program contribution when due; (3) a total penalty of $50,000 for filing an inaccurate annual worksheet; and (4) a total penalty of $150,000 for failing to submit quarterly and annual worksheets. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 49. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, that Globcom, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $715,031 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 50. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007.html
      • [636]CompUSA, Inc. 06-06-2007 CITATION [637]Circuit City Stores, Inc., Richmond, VA 06-06-2007 CITATION [638]Best Buy, Inc. Richfield, MN 06-05-2007 CITATION [639]East Coast Roofing aka Flat Roof Specialist 06-05-2007 CITATION [640]All Sports & Collectibles aka Warrior Custom Golf 06-04-2007 ORDER [641]Burke's Garden Telephone Company, Inc. 06-04-2007 CITATION [642]Soft Touch 06-04-2007 CITATION [643]Galaxie Lumber 06-04-2007 CITATION [644]Chiarello Investment 06-01-2007 ORDER [645]Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules: Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 06-01-2007 M.O.&O. [646]The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. 06-01-2007 FORFEITURE ORDER [647]Behringer USA, Inc. 06-01-2007 CITATION [648]Recourse Communications 06-01-2007 CITATION [649]One Stop Motors 06-01-2007 CITATION [650]Alliance Healthcare LLC 05-31-2007 NAL [651]Ted Sakaida & Sons, Inc., Van Nuys, California
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1058A1.html
      • ) Wheeling, West Virginia FRN No. 0011339769 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2007 Released: March 6, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that RCK 1 Group, LLC (the "Licensee"), Licensee of Station WKKX(AM) Wheeling, West Virginia, (the "Station") apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by broadcasting a live telephone conversation without giving prior notice to the individual being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on review of the facts and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1073A1.html
      • we do not find this to be a reasonable excuse for the Station's failure to provide access to the public inspection file. To condone excuses such as this one would render the public inspection process meaningless. 10. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that the Station apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Commission's rules. Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In its LOI Response, Gaston College requests that if the Bureau determines that a violation occurred, it impose an admonishment rather than a forfeiture. In support of this request, Gaston College cites Tabback Broadcasting and American Family Association, each an admonishment against a radio station
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1271A1.html
      • equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Mann admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that The Antique Radio Collector apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. 5. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1285A1.html
      • 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 20 months without an instrument of authorization, Imperial apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Imperial also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1300A1.html
      • ("Norfolk Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $7,000 to TPN. TPN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, The Paradise Network of North Carolina, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Sections 17.57 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1301A1.html
      • Orleans Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Ace. Ace has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ace Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1312A1.html
      • cancelled because the amount exceeds other forfeiture amounts proposed to broadcast stations under similar scenarios; that KM TV has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that KM TV has demonstrated an inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining KM TV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1313A1.html
      • 4, 2006, stating he was unable to obtain a copy of the catalog referenced in the NAL from Commission staff and argues that the refusal to provide him a copy of the catalog was a denial of due process. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Vance's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1375A1.html
      • Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $11,000 to Community. Community submitted a late-filed response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the forfeiture, which was received by the Dallas Office on March 22, 2007. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Community's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1407A1.html
      • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Amp'd Mobile, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Amp'd Mobile, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1408A1.html
      • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that KLM has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find KLM apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KLM IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1409A1.html
      • CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Easterbrooke Cellular has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Easterbrooke Cellular apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1412A1.html
      • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that CTC has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find CTC apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CTC Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1413A1.html
      • 10. We have determined that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1414A1.html
      • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that PriorityOne has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1415A1.html
      • 10. We have determined that Oneida County Rural Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain an adequate compliance statement in accordance with the rule. We find Oneida apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Oneida County Rural Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1417A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. 1^st United's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. 1^st United will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1419A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Burke's Garden's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Burke's Garden will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1420A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Connect's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Connect will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1421A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Habla's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Habla will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1422A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Manning's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Manning will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1423A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. PhoneCo's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. PhoneCo will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1433A1.html
      • operating its PLMRS station for approximately 5 years without an instrument of authorization, Mitchell Electric apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Mitchell Electric also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1436A1.html
      • that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, that it took steps to ensure that it came into compliance with Rules after the inspection by the Los Angeles agent and, consequently, the NAL should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1451A1.html
      • Commission authorization from October 27, 2005, to May 2, 2006. By operating its earth station for approximately six months without authorization, DirecTV apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. DirecTV also apparently violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1472A1.html
      • did not intentionally violate the Rules, and that he took steps after the issuance of the Notice, and again after the issuance of the NAL, to ensure that the operation of the ELT was in compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1473A1.html
      • 2006 ("Response"). Based on our review of Amaturo's Response and the record, we find that Amaturo did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) issued to Amaturo Group of L.A., Ltd., in the May 31, 2006, Notice of Apparent Liability for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1477A1.html
      • broadcast stations with partially complete public inspection files; that Una Vez has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that Una Vez took steps to correct the violation after the inspection by a Los Angeles Office agent. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Una Vez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1478A1.html
      • Entravision filed a response ("Response") on July 4, 2006, arguing that the antenna structure is not required to be painted, and that that the top white strobe light on the structure had not been experiencing malfunctions since August 2005. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1482A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Junior Lahens Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1486A1.html
      • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Parker submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Parker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1548A1.html
      • this Act." Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered GGP to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice GGP failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1602A1.html
      • 2004 to June 26, 2006. By operating its PLMRS stations for approximately two years without authorization, CLP apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. CLP also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the stations. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-163A1.html
      • amount from $10,000 to $1,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Spiry's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent set forth above. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mr. Spiry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-165A1.html
      • ("Dallas Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Unique. Unique has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Unique Broadcasting, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-166A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to A Radio. A Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, A Radio Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1672A1.html
      • this Act." Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered RSDC to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice RSDC failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1673A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.audio-direct.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1674A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 1 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.buy.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1675A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 1 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.audiodiscounters.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1676A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 1 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-167A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Abreu submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Abreu's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1686A1.html
      • to September 1, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately two years without authorization, JSMC apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. JSMC also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1753A1.html
      • S 2.1205(a). See Section 2.1204(a)(4) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(a)(4). Section 2.1203(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1203(a), permits the importation of a radiofrequency device only if "the importer or ultimate consignee, or their designated customs broker, declares that the device meets one of the conditions for entry set out in this section." See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1754A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.chumbo.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1756A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.compsource.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1757A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.cybergiftcenter.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1758A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dealznet.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1760A1.html
      • of the Act or Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. Vitec also contends that, if there is a basis for a monetary forfeiture, the $11,200 forfeiture amount assessed in the Forfeiture Order is excessive. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 9. Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1763A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1764A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1766A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.fadfusion.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1767A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1779A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Pierre-Francois. Mr. Pierre-Francois has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean-Harry Pierre-Francois IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1780A1.html
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Wilson submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Wilson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1784A1.html
      • and only "theoretically harmful." As such, AboCom further asserts that the marketing of the wireless access points has not been shown to be part of a deliberate plan to evade or disregard the rules. III. discussion 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining AboCom's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1788A1.html
      • and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. Siga Broadcasting submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Siga Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1812A1.html
      • the forfeiture amount, claiming that its failure to renew its license was "due to ignorance," and was "an oversight," and "not a premeditated act." Hare Planting also states that "[f]ifty-two hundred dollars is a lot of money to us." III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 6. We
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1828A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1828 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1828 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1828A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1828A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1867A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not currently establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing-aid compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-186A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Rankine. Rankine has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-187A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Simpson. Simpson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Elroy Simpson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1883A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1883 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1883 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1883A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1883A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-188A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the petition for waiver filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DENIED, and the petition for reconsideration filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DISMISSED. 10. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1919A1.html
      • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 2 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1920A1.html
      • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 2 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-192A1.html
      • raised no new arguments for us to address herein. We also find no reason to cancel the forfeiture based on Mr. Brown's decision to discontinue the station's operation. We have, however, examined the financial documentation submitted with Mr. Brown's petition and will reconsider the forfeiture amount pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b) of the Act , Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In analyzing a financial hardship claim, the Commission generally has looked to gross revenues as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick in determining whether a licensee is able to pay the assessed forfeiture. While we find that Mr. Brown
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1977A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. HRN submitted a response to the NAL requesting rescission or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining HRN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1979A1.html
      • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Roberts submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Roberts' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1995A1.html
      • by the Riverside Police Department. Fed Ex also argues that the violation was not repeated, because Fed Ex was able to resolve the interference the same day it was notified of the interference by the Los Angeles FCC agent. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1996A1.html
      • filed a response ("Response") on October 25, 2006, admitting the violation of Section 73.49, providing evidence that an effective fence now enclosed the antenna structure, and requesting that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Ortega and Juarez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2046A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2046 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2046 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2046A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2046A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2047A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2047 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2047 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2047A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2047A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2056A1.html
      • 2006." By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 13 months without an instrument of authorization, Doss apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Doss also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 2. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2069A1.html
      • clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Jerry Russell dba The Russell Company IS DISMISSED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2083A1.html
      • 28, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for almost four years without authorization, Kimberly Clark apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Kimberly Clark also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 2. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2085A1.html
      • registration in March 2002, completed construction in April 2002, filed for tower registration in May 2002, and did not complete registration of the tower until August 10, 2006. By failing to register its tower prior to construction and for more than four years thereafter, Telcom apparently violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2094A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to New Relampago. New Relampago has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, New Relampago Car Service Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 3. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2095A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mobile. Mobile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mobile Car Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-210A1.html
      • Taxicab for the noted violations. In its Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, Portland Taxicab does not dispute the violations but again seeks a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay the $12,000 forfeiture. III DISCUSSION 6. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules require that the Commission take into account, among other things, the party's ability to pay a forfeiture. A successful claim to reduce a forfeiture for inability to pay requires specific supporting financial documentation. In analyzing economic-hardship claims, the Commission generally looks to a company's gross revenues from the three most recent tax years as a reasonable and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2118A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-211A1.html
      • Oaks' petition for reconsideration as untimely. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the letter petition for reconsideration filed by David Michael Oaks IS DISMISSED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-212A1.html
      • for a $4,000 forfeiture as proposed by the NAL. On December 17, 2004, Mr. Gordon filed a Petition for Reconsideration restating the same arguments he made in his response to the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Gordon's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2135A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2135 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2135 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2135A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2135A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2136A1.html
      • ("Response") on November 27, 2006, arguing that it was in the process of ordering new EAS equipment prior to the inspection by the San Francisco Office, and that the forfeiture should be cancelled based on Gla-Mar's inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Gla-Mar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2137A1.html
      • the violation was neither willful nor repeated, and requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KSPZ antenna towers, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Sandhill's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2138A1.html
      • studio for KHLU-LP; that HTV will have financial difficulty paying the forfeiture amount; and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on HTV's history of compliance and its good faith effort to maintain a main studio for KHLU-LP. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining HTV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-213A1.html
      • Mr. Clay seeks dismissal of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay the forfeiture amount, and the fact that the equipment has been destroyed or sold. He has provided personal financial information to support his inability to pay claim. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement "). In examining Mr. Clay's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2150A1.html
      • access to NPTC's poles without a formal agreement in the event that NPTC fails to timely complete a just and reasonable pole attachment agreement. Complaint at 10-11, P 34. Salsgiver Telecom also requests that the Commission impose penalties and sanctions, and grant an award of damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. SS 206-209, 501, 503(a), (b) and 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1413, 1.80. Complaint at 10-11, P 34. We address these requests in Section III.D., infra. See, e.g., Response at 6, 12 PP 14, 41, 43-44. Although section 224(f)(2) explicitly permits denial of access "where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes," 47 U.S.C. S 224(f)(2), NPTC's denial of access does not rest on any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2235A1.html
      • WQFD608. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately one year without an instrument of authorization, Sakaida apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Sakaida also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 3. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-223A1.html
      • EAS equipment and failure to maintain a main studio. In its petition, Playa del Sol does not dispute the violations but instead seeks rescission or reduction of the forfeiture, claiming an inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION 2. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Playa del Sol's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-224A1.html
      • Mr. Martin had made preparations for painting the tower. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin had not provided a sufficiently detailed description and dates of the unfavorable weather conditions which delayed the painting. However, after taking into consideration all of the statutory factors described in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the Bureau reduced the proposed forfeiture amount from $10,000 to eight thousand dollars ($8,000) on the basis of Mr. Martin `s history of overall compliance. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin successfully substantiated a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2300A1.html
      • and the record, we find that Burke's Garden did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Burke's Garden Telephone Company, Inc., in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-230A1.html
      • Blountstown's inability to pay and its record of compliance. In support of these contentions, Blountstown submitted affidavits, relevant broadcast station daily log sheets, as well as its Federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Blountstown's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-232A1.html
      • information to the Commission upon request. Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. 11. We have examined Rama's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2349A1.html
      • the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. M.R.S. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining M.R.S.' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2351A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 6, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.target.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2356A1.html
      • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.bestbuy.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2364A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2369A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.circuitcity.com/ 2. http://www.circuitcity.com/ 3. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2370A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2378A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.target.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2383A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2384A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2385A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2386A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.sears.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2442A1.html
      • exhibit antenna structure #1013937's red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Multicultural filed a response ("Response") on January 23, 2007, arguing that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on Multicultural's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Multicultural's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2443A1.html
      • January 18, 2007, arguing that an admonishment, rather than the base forfeiture amount, should be issued for that violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because Gold Coast has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Gold Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2444A1.html
      • NAL, and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Finally, if a forfeiture is imposed, Payne asks for a personal interview and/or a hearing with a Commission official at the nearest field office to discuss the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Payne's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2451A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2451 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2451 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2451A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2451A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2466A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2523A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2534A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2534 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2534 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2534A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2534A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2551A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to L4 Media. L4 Media has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, L4 Media Group, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2552A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $7,000 to Mr. Konarz. Mr. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2554A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 12, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.thenerds.net/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2589A1.html
      • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 13, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.prestigecamera.com/ 2. http://www.prestigecamera.com/ 3. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2612A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2612 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2612 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2612A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2612A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2614A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 14, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2657A1.html
      • should be reduced based on its history of compliance. Finally, Del Rosario Talpa states that it requested an STA to operate from its current location on October 24, 2006 and that this STA was granted on November 7, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Del Rosario Talpa's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2658A1.html
      • agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2659A1.html
      • agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2666A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2666 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2666 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2666A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2666A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2705A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2705 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2705 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2705A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2705A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2749A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified herein. We have further determined that Global QA Corp. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2827A1.html
      • computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 (nine thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2852A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that New England Industrial Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2853A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Infasource.com is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(C), sections
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2994A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-299A1.html
      • 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules by marketing the RMR-C450 device, which is not eligible for a grant of equipment certification because it produces a radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at 11.23 GHz, and which produces emissions that substantially exceed the radiated emission limits for intentional radiators. A. Proposed Forfeiture 11. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3011A1.html
      • that authority, the Bureau three times ordered Yellow Cab to submit a timely written response to its letters of inquiry and to provide the information requested. Three times Yellow Cab failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-304A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-307A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-308A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.jammercity.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3098A1.html
      • of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Winton submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Winton's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3099A1.html
      • ("Atlanta Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Brenau. Brenau has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Brenau University Network IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-309A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-310A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-311A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-312A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-313A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-320A1.html
      • his request for reduction or elimination of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay. The financial information provided is a set of tax returns for Rejoice. No financial information for Mr. Neely himself is provided. 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Neely's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-321A1.html
      • Sections 2.906, 2.909 and 2.1071 through 2.1077 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.SS 2.906, 2.909, and 2.1071 through 2.1077. Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to One-O-One iSolutions, Inc. (October 2, 2006). Letter from Christoph Goeltner, to Gabriel Collazo, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 5, 2006). See Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-322A1.html
      • Order. We reject Greenwood's unsupported claims that it was not in violation. 10. Third, Greenwood asserts that the assessed $7,000 forfeiture amount "equates this situation with a circumstance in which there is no fence at all. . . ." Neither the tower fencing rule set forth in Section 73.49 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between an antenna structure that is enclosed within an ineffective locked fence, and one that has no fence at all. In both cases the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is not the maximum amount that may be assessed, but merely the starting point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3235A1.html
      • Arias, Blackstone, to Carla Conover, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated December 20, 2004. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19898 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See Response of Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. dated April 20, 2006 ("Response"), at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. S: 1464). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). After a citation has issued, no additional citation with respect to the conduct of the type detailed in the citation is necessary before notice and penalty proceedings may ensue. Id. Id. (Continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07- 3235
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3238A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. McCollum. Mr. McCollum has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Thomas McCollum IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3266A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3270A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3281A1.html
      • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Mechanicsville Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Mechanicsville Telephone Company apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, MECHANICHVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3282A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that CyberData, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that CyberData, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand, five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3291A1.html
      • have determined that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, AUDIO-VIDEO CORPORATION D/B/A A-1 COMMUNICATIONS IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3299A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3351A1.html
      • as the material's sponsor. See also note 8, supra. Although in this case certain broadcast stations actually aired the subject material, this is not a prerequisite to a finding of violation of Section 507(c). That provision states that disclosure is required whenever any person supplies program material "which is intended for broadcast...." 47 U.S.C. S: 507(c). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3372A1.html
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 3 unsolicited advertisements to the 3 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3374A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Aras Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3375A1.html
      • the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message identified above. We have further determined that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 0.111, 0.311, that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3392A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3393A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3408A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3411A1.html
      • documents and provide them to the Commission. Taking into account all of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we therefore conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $50,000 is warranted for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets. 21. Turning now to COI's failure to provide documentation and respond to the Bureau's LOI, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its response would be timely submitted. In fact,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3412A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred following two extension requests by ITE of the required response deadline, repeated
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3442A1.html
      • amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) for the apparent willful violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. On November 11, 2006, the Norfolk Office received Mr. Smallwood's response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. discussion 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Smallwood's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3483A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3540A1.html
      • quarter. Based on our review of Georgia Eagle's response to the NALs and the record, we cancel the NALs and admonish Georgia Eagle for failing to make available complete public inspection files for the three stations on May 9, 2007. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. Nos. 20073248010, 200732480011, and 200732480012 ARE CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Georgia Eagle Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of stations WCEH(AM), WRPG(FM), and WQXZ(FM) IS ADMONISHED for its violations of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by regular
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3581A1.html
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone ("Connect" or "Company"). Connect violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. Connect acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued to Connect a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on Connect's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave Connect the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3582A1.html
      • 10. We have determined that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Connect apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3583A1.html
      • monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against PhoneCo, LP ("PhoneCo" or "Company"). PhoneCo violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. PhoneCo acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to PhoneCo a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on PhoneCo's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave PhoneCo the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3584A1.html
      • clauses 10. We have determined that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an adequate CPNI compliance certificate in accordance with the rule. We find Capital Telecommunications, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CAPTIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3597A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Emile. Emile has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marcel Emile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3599A1.html
      • January 31, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to RMR. RMR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Rocky Mountain Radar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3613A1.html
      • instrument of authorization, Hmong American apparently violated Section 301 of the Act. Hmong American also acted in apparent violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. In addition, we note that, to date, Hmong American still has not filed a renewal application. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3638A1.html
      • NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On June 8, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received M.R.S.' petition for reconsideration on July 7, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.R.S.' petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3643A1.html
      • proposed forfeiture. On April 23, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order, in which the Bureau addressed the three NALs. The Bureau received Wilson's petition for reconsideration on May 23, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Wilson's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3697A1.html
      • GGP asserted that the failure to file a timely renewal application by its Brass Mill Center in Waterbury, Connecticut, was an isolated and inadvertent incident and that it has an otherwise broad history of overall compliance with the rules. III. discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 6. We
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3706A1.html
      • also permissible under Section 25.118(a)(1) of the Rules. Again, however, under Section 25.118(a), notification of such modification must be provided within 30 days of the modification. Walgreens violated Section 25.118(a) in both instances by failing to provide notice to the Commission of Modifications 2 and 3 within the requisite 30-day time period. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3734A1.html
      • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that River City Wireless has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find River City Wireless apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, River City Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-374A1.html
      • and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Citicasters apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify a party to a telephone conversation of its intent to record and broadcast their conversation. 9. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of this type is $4,000. In addition, the Commission rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-375A1.html
      • the proposed forfeiture and issued the Forfeiture Order. On December 4, 2006, A Radio filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture associated with its violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A Radio's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-376A1.html
      • response to the NAL stating that it had corrected the public file and antenna structure registration violations and requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Flagship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3843A1.html
      • at a greatly reduced power, which greatly reduced its revenue. One Mart also asks that we take into consideration its good faith efforts to replace the EAS equipment, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining One Mart's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3845A1.html
      • ("Norfolk Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Wise. Wise has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Radio Wise, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3868A1.html
      • response ("Response") on July 16, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture amount should be cancelled because BEC is no longer the licensee of KICA(AM) and KKYC(FM), and that BEC rectified the violation after the inspection by the Denver Office. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining BEC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3869A1.html
      • apparently willfully and repeatedly operated station KODL(AM) at an unauthorized location. Larson-Wynn filed a response ("Response") on March 27, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled based on Larson-Wynn's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Larson-Wynn's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3870A1.html
      • ("Response") on March 26, 2007, arguing that the fences had been removed from the towers to eliminate the overgrowth of weeds underneath the towers. Pereira also requested that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Pereira's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3880A1.html
      • presented in the NAL, and argues that the forfeiture should be rescinded because 3ABN immediately took steps to correct the EAS issues. 3ABN also requests that we reduce the forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining 3ABN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3913A1.html
      • 2004, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order, which reduced the forfeiture to $12,000 based on Delta's history of compliance with the rules. The Bureau received Delta's petition for reconsideration on November 1, 2004, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Delta's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3927A1.html
      • requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On July 12, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Mr. Winton's petition for reconsideration on July 30, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Winton's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3974A1.html
      • "[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The 1.2 GHz wireless camera purposely transmits RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4005A1.html
      • 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case, which represents the base amount for the cablecast transmitted by CN8 on September 21, 2006. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL PAY the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4016A1.html
      • to provide any response whatsoever to the Bureau's LOI. We therefore conclude that Liberty Phones' continuing failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of Commission orders. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 8. We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for Liberty Phones' willful and repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Liberty Phones' total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response and its grant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4017A1.html
      • for the unauthorized transfer of control of Telesphere's international section 214 authorization to Rally. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $16,000 against Rally is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. IT IS Further ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Rally Capital, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 63.03 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4019A1.html
      • the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for UMCC's willful or repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that UMCC's total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response, warrants a substantial increase
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4027A1.html
      • its Response, MRA argues that its overpower operation was inadvertent, that it took action to bring the station into compliance immediately after the Los Angeles Office's inspection, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining MRA's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4029A1.html
      • CVC filed a response ("Response") to the NAL on April 18, 2007. In its Response, CVC asks for mitigation of the forfeiture based of its ability to pay, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining CVC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4030A1.html
      • arguing that there were extenuating circumstances outside of PSETV's control that resulted in the violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on PSETV's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and its history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining PSETV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4037A1.html
      • March 15, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $5,200 to Imperial. Imperial has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Imperial Sugar Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand two hundred dollars ($5,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.949(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4075A1.html
      • each of the four apparent violations of Section 76.1615. Consequently, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for the cablecasts transmitted by CN8 on September 26 and 28, and October 3, 2006. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4098A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Venali, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Venali, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4099A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4133A1.html
      • pay the forfeiture in installments. Although it submitted a good faith payment of $400, as of September 24, 2007, Unique failed to submit all of the required financial documentation and its request for an installment payment plan was denied. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Unique's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4270A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4283A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4287A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4288A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4291A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4292A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4305A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mario's Roofing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4306A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Alliance Capital Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4339A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4371A1.html
      • By operating its PLMRS station for almost two and one-half years without authorization, Five Star apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Five Star also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4374A1.html
      • admits that it did not receive a grant of certification for this equipment until to April 3, 2007. Therefore, we find that MRC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 90.203 of the Rules by marketing 4.9 GHz aeronautical transmitting equipment prior to obtaining certification. 6. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4449A1.html
      • Shopping to Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (August 18, 2007). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4481A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-451A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Eagle West. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Eagle West has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-452A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $14,000 to Kaltenbach. Despite repeated contacts by the Los Angeles Office, Kaltenbach has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Kaltenbach d/b/a Metamerchant, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4570A1.html
      • an equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Ryan admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that Low Power Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. 5. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4583A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $17,000 to Diaz. Diaz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jairo Diaz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4590A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4627A1.html
      • April 12, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $9,200 to RSDC. RSDC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, RSDC of Michigan, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nine thousand, two hundred dollars ($9,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4630A1.html
      • 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,500 to Yellow Cab. Yellow Cab has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Yellow Cab Leasing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand, five hundred dollars ($10,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4652A1.html
      • least two Telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that See Through Windows is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4678A1.html
      • this explicit direction, Spectracom has provided no documentation to support its claim of inability to pay and therefore this defense must be rejected. 8. Spectracom's NAL Response does not otherwise dispute the forfeiture calculations described in detail in the NAL. We therefore affirm the forfeiture calculation and methodology set forth in the NAL. Applying the factors set forth in Section 1.80 and Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act to the instant case, we conclude that Spectracom is liable for a $12,000 forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Spectracom, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4679A1.html
      • the forfeiture penalty proposed in the NAL. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $17,500 for C5 Communication's violations of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, C5 Communications, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $17,500 for willfully violating Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4716A1.html
      • that it "does not possess or offer" fully-assembled AMT3000 transmitters but only offers a service, the assembly of AM transmitter kits made available by the manufacturer. Thus, asserts Antique Radio Collection, it neither violated the Act nor the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 7. We
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4720A1.html
      • met the requirements of Section 1.106(b)(2) of the Rules. Its petition for reconsideration must therefore be dismissed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1.106(b)(2) and (3) of the Rules, Americom's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's MO&O IS DISMISSED. 17. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card through the Commission's Debt and Credit Management Center at
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4745A1.html
      • with a label detailing the performance rating of the handset and with associated packaging that describes the technical specifications of the handset and the U-rating system. Id. See also Wireless Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. See Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. Id. Id. Id. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3). Continued from previous page Continued... Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4776A1.html
      • Ordering Clauses 10. We have determined that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Dialaround Enterprises Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DIALAROUND ENTERPRISES INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4874A1.html
      • affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS intercept device (which operates in the 1575.42 MHz band) and the 1.2/2.4 GHz wireless camera intentionally transmit RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. S: 302(c); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4907A1.html
      • appropriate for its apparent violation of the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that an aggregate proposed forfeiture of $24,000 against Satamatics is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Satamatics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000) for willfully violating Section 214, 310(b)(4), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4922A1.html
      • ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 5, 2007, by Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS DENIED. 10. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violations of Section 11.35 of the Rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4935A1.html
      • the forfeiture. IV. ordering clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED. 9. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules 10. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4938A1.html
      • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Bazile submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Bazile's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4992A1.html
      • KAZN(AM) ) Facility ID No. 10825 Pasadena, California ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 13, 2007 Released: December 13, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC ("Multicultural"), licensee of Station KAZN(AM), Pasadena, California (the "Station"), liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for its repeated and willful violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to "fully and accurately disclose the material terms of contest[s] . . . and conduct
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4A1.html
      • amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. On December 15, 2006, Russell submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Russell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5004A1.html
      • Provo, Utah FRN No. 0010028835 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 14, 2007 Released: December 17, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that 3 Point Media - Salt Lake City, LLC ("3 Point Media"), licensee of Station KHTB(FM), Provo, Utah, broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of the facts,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-502A1.html
      • apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules and the apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Long Pond submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Long Pond's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5051A1.html
      • that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's petition for reconsideration of the February 6, 2007 Forfeiture Order IS hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 23. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. 24. Payment of the $10,000 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5084A1.html
      • 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the request for reconsideration filed by Florida Food Products, Inc. IS DENIED. 6. Payment of the three thousand dollar ($3,000) forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5090A1.html
      • actions were not "willful" under Section 301 of the Act. It also asserts that the Commission is barred from assessing a forfeiture for violation of Section 1.949(a) (failure to file a timely renewal application) on statute of limitations grounds. III. discussion 9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 10. We
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5105A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $23,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $23,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5107A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-548A1.html
      • the measurements made by the Honolulu agents. Instead, Visionary argues that it did not willfully violate the Commission's RFR rules, and that it believed, in good faith, its site was in a remote non-accessible area with adequate warning signs. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Visionary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-549A1.html
      • limits. Entravision also argues that the alleged violation was neither willful nor repeated, and that it made good faith efforts to comply with the requests made by Tampa Office agents during and after the inspections conducted by that office. III. discussion 13. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-550A1.html
      • roof; that the alleged violation was not willful, as Infinity had no prior knowledge of the RFR violations at the Park Tower site; and that the Tampa Office incorrectly assessed an upward adjustment of the forfeiture amount against Infinity. III. discussion 14. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Infinity's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-559A1.html
      • stated in the response that documentation in support of his request would be submitted under separate cover. To date, no such documentation has been submitted. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,Gary Toussaint IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. S 301. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-643A1.html
      • operations. By operating its earth station for approximately nine months without an instrument of authorization, La Carpa has apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. La Carpa also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 6. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-667A1.html
      • and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW 2. The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between telecommunications service providers. Accordingly, we find that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-673A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Duckworth submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Duckworth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-811A1.html
      • The Enforcement Bureau reduced the forfeiture amount from $21,000 to $16,800, based on 127, Inc.'s history of compliance with the Rules. 127, Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining 127, Inc.'s petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-862A1.html
      • pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo's Petition for Reconsideration, filed February 13, 2006, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 6. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-870A1.html
      • any prior forfeitures or violations. Finally, we also decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture based on WADV's history of compliance. WADV previously has received three Notices of Violation, two of which included violations for over-powered operation. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, WADV Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-879A1.html
      • however, that imposition of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship on him and his spouse. In support of his inability to pay claim, Mr. Granda submitted federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act , and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Granda's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-881A1.html
      • amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Mr. Metzger submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Metzger's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-882A1.html
      • of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Rama submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its remedial good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Rama's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-885A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-885 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-885 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-885A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-885A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-893A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-893 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-893 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-893A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-893A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-894A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-894 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-894 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-894A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-894A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-896A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-896 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-896 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-896A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-896A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-897A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-897 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-897 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-897A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-897A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-903A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-903 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-903 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-903A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-903A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-904A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-904 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-904 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-904A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-904A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-905A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-905 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-905 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-905A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-905A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-908A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-908 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-908 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-908A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-908A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-925A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-925 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-925 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-925A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-925A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-926A1.html
      • beyond the parameters of the station's authorization. Lockheed Martin concedes that it operated earth station E970322 without Commission authorization constantly and regularly from April 4, 2006 through June 7, 2006. By operating its earth station without authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-929A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-929 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-929 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-929A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-929A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-930A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-930 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-930 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-930A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-930A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-931A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-931 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-931 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-931A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-931A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-932A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-932 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-932 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-932A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-932A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-934A1.html
      • were previously considered and rejected will be denied. Farmworkers raises four arguments in its Petition, which we address in turn. 7. In its first argument, Farmworkers alleges that the Western Region erred in assessing the "maximum forfeiture" of $8,000 for what was "clearly a mistake." Farmworkers argues that the Forfeiture Order cites to its logging violations and states that Section 1.80 of the Rules requires only a $1,000 forfeiture amount for logging violations. We disagree. Section 1.80 of the Rules lists $8,000 as the base, and not the maximum, forfeiture for "EAS equipment not installed or operational." As the Western Region determined in the Forfeiture Order, Farmworkers failed to produce "evidence to refute the San Diego Office's finding that no audio
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-935A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-935 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-935 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-935A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-935A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-946A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-946 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-946 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-946A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-946A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-957A1.html
      • conclude that the violation here primarily occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive and that the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-958A1.html
      • Entercom apparently violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Entercom attributes these violations to employee error. Inadvertence or employee oversight does not excuse Entercom from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. Licensees are responsible for the actions of their employees. 8. The statutory maximum forfeiture for Entercom's apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 is $32,500. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the contest rule is $4,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-959A1.html
      • 0008130353 WMGO(AM), Canton, Mississippi ) Facility ID No. 73259 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 2, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc. (the "Licensee"), Licensee of Station WMGO(AM), Canton, Mississippi (the "Station"), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, and later broadcasting that telephone conversation, without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-960A1.html
      • may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that CBS Radio Inc. of Philadelphia, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, CBS
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-962A1.html
      • in this case. Specifically, we conclude that the violation occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive or to favor a particular contestant or class of contestants. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Access 1 New Jersey License Company, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-970A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-970 1 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-970 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-970A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-970A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-971A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-971 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-971 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-971A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-971A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-972A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-972 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-972 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-972A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-972A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-973A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-973 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-973 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-973A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-973A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-974A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-974 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-974A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-974A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-975A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-975 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-975 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-975A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-975A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-976A1.html
      • to the NAL, Truatt reports that WTBQ's EAS equipment is fully operational and that the partial repairs he made to the equipment prior to the agent's inspection warrant a reduction in the forfeiture. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-977A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-977 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-977 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-977A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-977A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-978A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-978 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-978 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-978A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-978A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-979A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-979 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-979 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-979A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-979A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-980A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-980 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-980 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-980A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-980A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-983A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S 227; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-983 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-983 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-983A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-983A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-984A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-984 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-984 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-984A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-984A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-986A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-986 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-986 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-986A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-986A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-988A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-988 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-988 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-988A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-988A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-274734A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2784 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2784 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274734A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274734A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282344A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282344A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282344A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282409A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282409A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282409A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282411A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282411A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282411A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282412A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282412A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282412A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282414A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282414A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282414A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282416A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1005 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1005 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282416A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282416A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282533A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282533A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282533A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282557A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282557A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282557A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282651A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282651A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282651A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283144A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283144A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283144A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283834A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283834A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283834A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283835A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283835A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283835A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283844A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283844A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283844A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283853A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283853A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283853A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283858A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283858A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283858A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283859A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283859A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283859A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283861A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283861A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283861A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283881A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283881A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283881A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283889A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283889A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283889A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283893A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1160 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283893A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283893A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283903A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283903A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283903A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283907A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283907A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283907A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283908A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283908A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283908A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283909A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283909A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283909A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283910A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283910A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283910A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283911A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283911A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283911A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283940A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283940A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283940A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283941A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1226 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1226 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283941A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283941A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283942A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283942A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283942A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283949A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1253 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1253 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283949A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283949A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283950A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283950A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283950A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283952A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1292 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283952A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283952A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283953A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1293 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283953A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283953A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283954A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1295 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1295 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283954A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283954A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283955A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1296 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283955A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283955A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283956A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283956A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283956A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283957A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283957A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283957A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283958A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283958A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283958A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283959A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283959A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283959A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283966A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283966A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283966A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283967A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283967A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283967A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283970A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283970A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283970A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283971A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283971A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283971A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283972A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283972A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283972A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283974A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283974A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283974A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283977A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283977A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283977A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283985A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283985A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283985A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284590A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284590A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284590A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284594A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284594A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284594A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284597A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284597A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284597A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284831A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284831A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284831A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284944A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1160 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284944A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284944A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284985A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284985A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284985A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284986A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284986A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284986A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284987A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284987A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284987A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284989A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284989A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284989A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285020A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285020A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285020A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285022A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285022A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285022A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285023A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285023A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285023A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285024A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285024A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285024A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285025A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285025A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285025A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285032A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285032A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285032A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285036A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285036A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285036A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285037A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285037A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285037A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285038A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285038A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285038A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285042A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285042A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285042A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285046A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285046A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285046A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285047A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285047A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285047A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285048A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285048A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285048A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285050A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285050A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285050A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285051A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285051A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285051A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285052A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285052A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285052A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285053A1.html
      • (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See text accompanying note 2 above. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285053A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285053A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285057A1.html
      • (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See text accompanying note 2 above. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285057A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285057A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285058A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285058A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285058A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285059A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285059A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285059A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285060A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285060A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285060A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285061A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285061A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285061A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285062A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285062A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285062A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285063A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285063A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285063A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285064A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285064A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285064A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285069A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285069A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285069A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285070A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285070A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285070A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285072A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285072A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285072A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285073A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285073A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285073A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285074A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285074A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285074A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285075A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285075A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285075A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285076A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285076A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285076A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285275A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285275A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285275A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285279A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285279A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285279A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285280A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285280A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285280A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285281A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285281A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285281A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285289A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285289A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285289A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285290A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285290A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285290A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285295A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285295A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285295A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285296A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285296A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285296A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285297A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285297A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285297A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285301A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285301A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285301A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285302A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285302A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285302A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285307A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285307A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285307A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-287216A1.html
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). The phrase "unsolicited advertisement" is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as "any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define "telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288389A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288389A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288389A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288390A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288390A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288390A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288391A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288391A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288391A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288414A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288414A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288414A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288416A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288416A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288416A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288420A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288420A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288420A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288421A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288421A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288421A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288422A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288422A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288422A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288423A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288423A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288423A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288424A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288424A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288424A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288425A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288425A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288425A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288426A1.html
      • practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We refer in this citation to the Commission's rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288426A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288426A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288427A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288427A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288427A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288428A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288428A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288428A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288433A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288433A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288433A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288434A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288434A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288434A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288435A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288435A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288435A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288436A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288436A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288436A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288439A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288439A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288439A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288441A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288441A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288441A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288443A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288443A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288443A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288445A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288445A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288445A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288452A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288452A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288452A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288454A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288454A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288454A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288455A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288455A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288455A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288456A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288456A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288456A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288457A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288457A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288457A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288458A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288458A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288458A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288478A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288478A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288478A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288504A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288504A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288504A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288505A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288505A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288505A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288506A1.html
      • (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See text accompanying note 2 above. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288506A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288506A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288507A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288507A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288507A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288508A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288508A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288508A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289125A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289125A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289125A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289127A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289127A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289128A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289128A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289128A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289129A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289129A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289129A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289132A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289132A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289132A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289238A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289238A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289238A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289239A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289239A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289239A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289240A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289240A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289240A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289241A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289241A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289241A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289242A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289242A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289242A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289243A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289243A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289243A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289244A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289244A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289244A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289246A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289246A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289246A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289247A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289247A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289247A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289383A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289383A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289383A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289384A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289384A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289384A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289385A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289385A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289385A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289386A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289386A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289386A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289387A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289387A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289387A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289388A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289388A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289388A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289390A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289390A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289390A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289391A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289391A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289391A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289392A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289392A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289392A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289394A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289394A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289394A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289395A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289395A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289395A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289438A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289438A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289438A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289441A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289441A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289441A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289487A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289487A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289487A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289488A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289488A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289488A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289489A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289489A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289489A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289490A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289490A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289490A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289491A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289491A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289491A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289492A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289492A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289492A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289493A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289493A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289493A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289494A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289494A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289494A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289495A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289495A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289495A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289497A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289497A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289497A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289498A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289498A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289498A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289499A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289499A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289499A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289500A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289500A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289500A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289501A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289501A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289501A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289604A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289604A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289604A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289607A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289607A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289607A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289608A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289608A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289608A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290124A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290124A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290124A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290127A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290127A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290132A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290132A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290132A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290133A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290133A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290133A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290149A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290149A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290149A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290150A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290150A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290150A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290151A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290151A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290151A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290170A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290170A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290170A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290178A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290178A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290178A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290185A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290185A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290185A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290328A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290328A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290328A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290331A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290331A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290331A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290406A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290406A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290406A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290544A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290544A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290544A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290548A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290548A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290548A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291550A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291550A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291550A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291552A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291552A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291552A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291553A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291553A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291553A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291554A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291554A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291554A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291555A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291555A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291555A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291558A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291558A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291558A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291573A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291573A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291573A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291574A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 2 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291574A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291574A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291575A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 1 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291575A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291575A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291577A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291577A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291577A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291578A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291578A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291578A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291579A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291579A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291579A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291583A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291583A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291583A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291584A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291584A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291584A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291585A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291585A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291585A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291587A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291587A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291587A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291588A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291588A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291588A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291590A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291590A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291590A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291594A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291594A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291594A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291595A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291595A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291595A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291596A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291596A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291596A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291597A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291597A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291597A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291606A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291606A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291606A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291607A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291607A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291607A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291660A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291660A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291660A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291661A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291661A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291661A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291665A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291665A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291665A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291666A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291666A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291666A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291667A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291667A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291667A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291668A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291668A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291668A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291669A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291669A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291669A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291799A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291799A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291799A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291800A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291800A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291800A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291801A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291801A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291801A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291802A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291802A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291802A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292025A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292025A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292025A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292026A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292026A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292026A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292027A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292027A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292027A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292028A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292028A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292028A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292029A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292029A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292029A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292112A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292112A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292112A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292113A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292113A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292113A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292114A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292114A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292114A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292115A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292115A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292115A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292116A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292116A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292116A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292119A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292119A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292119A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292127A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292127A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292128A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292128A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292128A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292235A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292235A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292235A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292236A1.html
      • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292236A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292236A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292307A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292307A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292307A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292308A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292308A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292308A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292309A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292309A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292309A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292310A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292310A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292310A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292326A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292326A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292326A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292329A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292329A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292329A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292330A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292330A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292330A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292331A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292331A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292331A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292332A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292332A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292332A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292334A1.html
      • refer in this citation to the Commission's rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292334A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292334A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292335A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292335A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292335A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292336A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292336A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292336A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292338A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292338A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292338A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292339A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292339A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292339A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292340A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292340A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292340A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292341A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292341A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292341A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292342A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292342A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292342A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292343A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292343A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292343A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292345A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292345A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292345A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292346A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292346A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292346A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292360A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292360A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292360A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292361A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292361A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292361A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292362A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292362A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292362A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292602A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292602A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292602A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292607A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292607A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292607A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292608A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292608A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292608A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292613A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292613A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292613A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292614A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292614A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292614A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292615A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292615A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292615A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292616A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292616A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292616A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292617A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292617A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292617A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292637A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292637A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292637A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292638A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292638A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292638A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292639A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292639A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292639A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292646A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292646A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292646A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292647A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292647A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292647A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294255A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294255A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294255A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294256A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294256A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294256A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294258A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294258A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294258A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294260A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294260A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294260A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294261A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294261A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294261A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294262A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294262A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294262A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294263A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294263A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294263A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294264A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294264A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294264A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294382A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294382A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294382A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294383A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294383A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294383A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294384A1.html
      • including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached 1 complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 888-567-8688, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294384A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294384A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294385A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294385A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294385A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294399A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294399A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294399A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294400A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294400A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294400A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294401A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294401A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294401A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294402A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294402A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294402A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294403A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294403A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294403A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294404A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294404A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294404A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294405A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294405A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294405A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294406A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294406A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294406A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294407A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294407A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294407A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302748A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302748A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302748A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302749A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302749A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302749A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302751A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302751A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302751A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302752A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302752A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302752A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302753A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302753A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302753A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302754A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302754A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302754A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302755A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302755A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302755A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302756A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302756A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302756A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302757A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302757A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302757A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302758A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302758A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302758A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302760A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302760A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302760A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302761A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302761A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302761A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303229A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303229A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303229A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303230A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303230A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303230A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303231A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303231A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303231A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303232A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303232A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303232A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303233A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303233A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303233A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303234A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303234A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303234A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303235A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303235A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303235A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303236A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303236A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303236A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303237A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303237A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303237A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303238A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303238A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303238A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303239A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303239A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303239A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303240A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303240A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303240A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303241A1.html
      • U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303241A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303241A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303243A1.html
      • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 5 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303243A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303243A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303244A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303244A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303244A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303245A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303245A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303245A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303246A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303246A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303246A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303247A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303247A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303247A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303248A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303248A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303248A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303249A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303249A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303249A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303250A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303250A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303250A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303251A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303251A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303251A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303252A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303252A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303252A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303253A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303253A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303253A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303254A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303254A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303254A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303354A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303354A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303354A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303356A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303356A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303356A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303357A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303357A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303357A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303491A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303491A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303491A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303492A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303492A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303492A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303493A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303493A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303493A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303494A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303494A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303494A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303495A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303495A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303495A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303496A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303496A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303496A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303497A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303497A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303497A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303498A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303498A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303498A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303499A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303499A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303499A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303500A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303500A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303500A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303501A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303501A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303501A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303502A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303502A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303502A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303503A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303503A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303503A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303504A1.html
      • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303504A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303504A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303505A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303505A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303505A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303551A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303551A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303551A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303552A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303552A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303552A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-305699A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1774 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1774 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305699A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305699A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-305700A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1700 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1700 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305700A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305700A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-307623A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1771 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1771 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307623A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307623A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-100A1.html
      • 28 models of its devices as non-compliant and that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL is excessive. Behringer also claims that it has implemented affirmative measures to ensure compliance with the FCC equipment authorization and related requirements. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture set forth in the NAL was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the guidelines enunciated in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeiture liability, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs the Commission to take into account the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior offenses and ability to pay; the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and such other matters as justice may require. We
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-105A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for the violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 13. The DTV tuner requirement promotes
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-106A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 13. The DTV tuner requirement promotes an
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-125A1.html
      • of control; $4,000 for a failure to file required forms or information; and the statutory maximum for each service for misrepresentation and a lack of candor. Further, the Commission allows a maximum forfeiture of $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed shall not exceed $1,325,000 for any single continuous violation. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Unremedied,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-131A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 218 unsolicited advertisements to the 132 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Extreme Leads, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,377,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Extreme Leads, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,377,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-133A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 209 unsolicited advertisements to the 45 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,133,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-134A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 29 unsolicited advertisements to the 18 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $130,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $130,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-135A1.html
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventeen unsolicited advertisements to the thirteen consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that MHJP, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that MHJP, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-146A1.html
      • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that QuoteMaster is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $43,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that QuoteMaster is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $43,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-147A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 356 unsolicited advertisements to the 110 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,168,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,168,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-148A1.html
      • described herein are not adequate to deter violations of our USF rules, our statutory authority permits the imposition of much larger penalties and we will not hesitate to impose them as circumstances require. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 31. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that VCI is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,047,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-152A1.html
      • $36,000 forfeiture is appropriate for Sinclair's violations. This represents the base amount for the single broadcast of the ABF program over each of the nine above-captioned Sinclair stations on September 11 or 12, 2004. I. Ordering clauses 19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Sonshine is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules. 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-153A1.html
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $71,500 (seventy-one thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-154A1.html
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 28 unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Construction Expo, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $126,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Construction Expo, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $126,000 (one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-155A1.html
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seven unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Trinity Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $31,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Trinity Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $31,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-156A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-157A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-158A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-165A1.html
      • (2006). See id. See also International Telecom Exchange, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6232 (2006) and Universal Telecommunications, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6579 (2006). See 47 U.S.C. S:258(a). See 47 C.F.R. S:64.1120. 47 C.F.R. S:1.95. Id. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-54, released December 9, 2003. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-58, released December 24, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80 (b)(2). The Kintzel brothers have engaged in a pattern of misconduct that spans more than five years and now multiple enforcement proceedings. Their conduct represents a systemic abrogation of their obligations as a common carrier and demonstrates a blatant disregard for Commission Rules. We therefore believe it is appropriate to consider assessing the statutory maximum for each of these recent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-191A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 11. The DTV V-Chip technology requirements
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-1A1.html
      • thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) against 1^st Source Information Specialists, Inc. d/b/a LocateCell.com ("LocateCell"). LocateCell violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. LocateCell acted in apparent and willful and repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On July 13, 2006, the Commission issued to LocateCell a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of ninety-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) based on LocateCell's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave LocateCell the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-209A1.html
      • sold units of five of the devices. 9. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Austin Hughes apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules by marketing nine unauthorized Class A digital devices without proper verification. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Austin Hughes' violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules were willful and repeated. 11. Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-230A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-two unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $335,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $335,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-3A1.html
      • the violations, but seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed $75,000 forfeiture. San Jose claims that its violations were not intentional, that its corrective measures demonstrate good faith, and that its payment of the forfeiture would cause economic hardship. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, the Commission is required to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s); the violator's degree of culpability, history or prior offenses and ability to pay; and such other matters as justice may require. We have considered San Jose's claims in light of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-45A1.html
      • for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Hawking's conduct has continued over a period that began in July 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Hawking's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 26. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-49A1.html
      • Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Ramko apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by selling or offering for sale 17 models of radio transceivers which, by their nature, are ineligible for equipment certification. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 20. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Ramko's violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules were willful and repeated. 21. Section 1.80(b)(4)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-58A1.html
      • concedes that the Commission may deviate from the guidelines in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 503(b)(2)(D). In any event, the Commission's established methodologies for determining the amount of the forfeiture for the particular violations at issue here do take into account the base forfeiture amounts, as well as the upward and downward adjustment criteria, specified in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission followed this methodology exactly in the InPhonic NAL. 25. Next, with respect to section 503(b)(2)(D), InPhonic is wrong that we did not comply with the Act because the forfeiture was not sufficiently tied to InPhonic in particular. For example, with respect to the registration violation, InPhonic states that instead of "a particularized Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-59A1.html
      • Worksheet within the year preceding issuance of the NAL; and (3) a total penalty of $86,774 for failing to make three monthly universal service contributions within the year preceding issuance of the NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, that Global Teldata II, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 29. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-67A1.html
      • demonstrate financial hardship sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. We are, however, canceling the proposed forfeiture with respect two calls that were made one day before effectuation of the call recipient's national do-not-call registration. 50. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f)(4), that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $748,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. We find that Dynasty's Arizona and California companies are jointly and severally liable
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-73A1.html
      • CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), and section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.3, Carrera's Petition for Waiver is GRANTED. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, Carrera IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,900 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and Commission's rules. 22. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-75A1.html
      • was persuaded by the licensee's elaboration of previously provided information that further relief was warranted. There has been no comparable showing here. 11. We have examined CB's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended ("Act"), in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules. We reverse the Bureau's decision to the extent that it improperly relied on post-investigational efforts to correct a violation as a basis to mitigate the forfeiture amount, but otherwise affirm the Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and Order finding CB Radio, Inc. liable for a forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-80A1.html
      • Enforcement Bureau shall "(a) [s]erve as the primary Commission entity responsible for enforcement of the Communications Act and other communications statutes, the Commission's rules, Commission orders and Commission authorizations, other than matters that are addressed in the context of a pending application for a license or other authorization . . ."). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, P 27. See Star Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 18630-33; Star NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 17657-58; Northeast Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-93A1.html
      • FCC Rcd at 4030-31, PP 7-8. In its Reconsideration Petition, Infinity had argued that the distinction between use of the NAL per se and use of the NAL's underlying facts was meaningless because they both have "the same punitive effect." See Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030, PP 6-7. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17102-04, PP 32-36 (1997); on recon., 15 FCC Rcd 303, 303-05, PP 3-5 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement Reconsideration Order"). Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030-31, P 8 (citing 106 Cong. Rec. 17623 (Aug. 25, 1960); S. Rep. No. 1857, 86^th Cong., 2d Sess. at
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-94A1.html
      • text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) In the Matter of ) Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the ) Commission's Rules ) EB-06-IH-2271 Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The ) Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: May 17, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007 By the Commission: 1. On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-96A1.html
      • finds none that support FMG's position. Accordingly, we affirm the Bureau's rejection of FMG's claim of inability to pay, which we find unsupported by the record. 16. Conclusion. We have examined FMG's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Bureau's earlier decision and, therefore, we deny FMG's application for review and affirm the Bureau MO&O finding FMG liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008.html
      • Adams Personnel 06-17-2008 CITATION [694]County Records (05A) aka Morgan Drexen 06-17-2008 CITATION [695]Choice One Financial, Inc. 06-17-2008 CITATION [696]Bally's Grand Hotel Casino 06-16-2008 CITATION [697]Sarah Carlson dba The Accounting Angels 06-16-2008 CITATION [698]Responsive Respiratory, Inc. 06-16-2008 CITATION [699]Ortega Chiropractic & Orthopedic Clinic 06-16-2008 CITATION [700]Monroe Door & Lock, LLC 06-16-2008 CITATION [701]Action Mortgage Co., Inc. 06-13-2008 ORDER [702]Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules 06-13-2008 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [703]Rent-A-Center, Inc., Plano, TX 06-13-2008 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [704]Lamkin Corporation, San Diego, California 06-13-2008 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [705]Conn's, Inc., Beaumont, TX 06-13-2008 NOTICE OF DEBARMENT [706]Rafael G. Adame 06-13-2008 NAL [707]PinPoint Wireless, Inc. 06-13-2008 FORFEITURE ORDER [708]Omni Communications, Inc., KWOX, Woodward, Oklahoma 06-13-2008 FORFEITURE ORDER [709]FM 92 Broadcasters, Inc.,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-103A1.html
      • of Section 17.1125(a) of the Rules and the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Claro submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Claro's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1057A1.html
      • telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1069A1.html
      • returns from 2004 and 2005 reflecting gross revenues and contributions from October 1, 2004 through September 31, 2006; a statement reflecting the current account status of Side by Side; and an Unpaid Bills Detail as of February 29, 2008. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1070A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Whitley. Whitley has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Trevor Whitely IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1073A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $17,000 to Clemons. Clemons has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Charles Clemons IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1092A1.html
      • ("Christian Voice"), licensee of formerly noncommercial educational television Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arises from a complaint filed with the Commission in September 2003, alleging that then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM) broadcast prohibited underwriting announcements during the month of August 2003. In April 2004, after the complaint had been filed, but before the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") had inquired into this matter, Christian Voice sought to modify its station's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1093A1.html
      • or authorization from a licensed cellular or PCS provider is required to operate its devices, it was obligated to respond fully and completely to the Bureau's inquiry. Therefore, Digital Antenna's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. A. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-112A1.html
      • sources of income. We have reviewed the personal income tax returns submitted by Ramos and we find that the forfeiture represents a percentage of gross income that falls within the range that has been found acceptable. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eliandro B. Ramos IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1143A1.html
      • ASA in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a). ASA submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining ASA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1187A1.html
      • public service, which should mitigate the forfeiture, that the statutory factors requires reduction of the forfeiture, that the fine is disproportionate to the nature of the offense, and that Southern does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1188A1.html
      • a response ("Response") to the NAL on January 16, 2008. In their Response, the Campos argue that they were not aware of the severity of the violations, and that they do not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 11. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1189A1.html
      • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Ross submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Ross' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1190A1.html
      • ("Tampa Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Phillips. Phillips has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Phillips Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1193A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1196A1.html
      • the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1202A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1209A1.html
      • the Rules, that it took steps to remedy the violation as soon as it was notified of it, that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1225A1.html
      • its failure to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership if antenna structure number 1023390, Western Slope argues that its violation resulted in no harm and that the forfeiture should be cancelled in favor of an admonishment. III. DISCUSSION 14. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1226A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Action. Despite evidence that Action received the NAL, Action has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Action Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1291A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1299A1.html
      • inability to pay, stating that he lives on a fixed income and is disabled. In support of his claim of inability to pay, on February 19, 2008, Mr. Ryan submitted financial documentation for the years 2007, 2006 and 2005. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 6. Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1314A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1346A1.html
      • 29911 Newport, Washington ) FRN No. 0011343191 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 9, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that ProActive Communications, Inc. (the "Licensee"), licensee of Station KQQB-FM, Newport, Washington (the "Station"), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast and later broadcasting that telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based upon our review
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1349A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1354A1.html
      • the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least four unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that So Clean Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that So Clean Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Global Access's failure to respond to the Commission's Notice as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Global Access will have an opportunity to submit evidence
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1369A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1373A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1376A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1382A1.html
      • delivering at least two telephone solicitations to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1383A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Locators, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Locators, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1385A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that First Alliance Security is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that First Alliance Security is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1387A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1388A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1389A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Modena Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1394A1.html
      • to Omni in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a). Omni submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Omni's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1395A1.html
      • eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Broadcasters submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Broadcasters' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1398A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1423A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1424A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1435A1.html
      • January 17, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") reduced the forfeiture based on Claro's history of compliance with the rules and released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Claro's petition for reconsideration on February 19, 2008, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Claro's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-143A1.html
      • Ms. Rodriguez that prior knowledge of the law is not necessary in determining whether a violation existed. As a licensee, Ms. Rodriguez will be held responsible for any future violations of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Family Car Service, Inc. is HEREBY CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Lillian Rodriguez at her address of record and to counsel for Lillian Rodriguez at his address of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1450A1.html
      • This TV has only an `analog' broadcast tuner so will require a converter box after February 17, 2009 to receive over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna, because of the transition to digital broadcasting on that date. (It should continue to work as before with cable and satellite TV systems, gaming consoles, VCRs, DVD players, and similar products.). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1460A1.html
      • the relevant factors when assessing the forfeiture to One Mart. The Commission has already determined that the "adjustment criteria listed in . . . the guidelines reflect the factors outlined in the statute." For forfeitures assessed under Section 503 of the Act, as this one is, the adjustment factors included by the Commission in its downward adjustment criteria, in Section 1.80, are: (1) minor violation; (2) good faith or voluntary disclosure; (3) history of compliance; and (4) inability to pay. We find that the Region properly considered the downward adjustment criteria and concluded that One Mart's violation, which consisted of KEVT(AM) failure to ensure the operational readiness of its EAS equipment from November 2005 through August 2006, and its acknowledgment that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1461A1.html
      • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, AMERI-KING Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1468A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that General Equipment & Supply is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1471A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Clouden. Clouden has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Richard Clouden IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-14A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1505A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $18,000 to Mr. Doe. Mr. Doe has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, John Doe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violation of Sections 301 and 325 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1508A1.html
      • the apparent willful violation of Section 73.845 of the Rules and the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Halifax submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Halifax's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1510A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Rodriguez. Rodriguez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Frank Rodriguez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1528A1.html
      • ("Atlanta Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $12,000 to D-Mitch. D-Mitch has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, D-Mitch Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-155A1.html
      • be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS Blocker (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. S: 302(c); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1565A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1566A1.html
      • danger to the public. The chief engineer further states that he is not sure exactly how the gate became open, but believes that it may have resulted from a rotten gate latch that blew open from snow and wind. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Radio Plus's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1598A1.html
      • Fargo, North Dakota ) FRN No. 0010028835 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 7, 2008 Released: July 7, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership ("Capstar" or "Licensee"), former licensee of Station KFGO(AM), Fargo, North Dakota (the "Station"), broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1605A1.html
      • assembling and prioritizing creditors' claims against Twin Towers Broadcasting, Inc. Owner asserts that requiring full payment of the forfeiture would harm innocent creditors. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we cancel the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to David Ryder, Receiver for violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules IS HEREBY CANCELED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to David Ryder, Receiver at his address of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1628A1.html
      • was no deception to the public. CBS also argues that the Commission should impose a burden on the complainant to show that he listened to the Station even though his address is outside the Station's listener area contours. III. discussion 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1647A1.html
      • ("STA") on December 10, 2006, and that, since that time, it has assumed that the request would be answered by the FCC. Christian Family Network also claims that it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Christian Family Network's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1670A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-167A1.html
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Ryzex's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2003, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Ryzex's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 18. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ryzex marketed two models of improperly labeled PDTs, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and PDT6846, within the past year. Ryzex's marketing of each of these two improperly labeled models
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1680A1.html
      • E000584, to among other things, re-license the antennas previously associated with E970116. On January 23, 2008, the International Bureau granted ABS-CBN's modification application for earth station E000584. 5. Also in its Response, ABS-CBN requests that we forego assessing a forfeiture in this case, or alternatively, assess a forfeiture that is substantially less than the base forfeiture amount established in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. In arguing for mitigation, ABS-CBN states that until the instant proceeding, it continuously operated all of its earth stations in full compliance with the Commission's rules and has never been subject to a Commission enforcement action related to the operation of its earth stations. ABS-CBN also asserts that during the period of unauthorized operation it did
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1685A1.html
      • Extended Coverage High Frequency Transceivers, Public Notice 62882, 1996 WL 242469, available at > (OET, rel. May 13, 1996) ("Notice"). Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1205. Under Section 2.1205, the required declaration may be filed electronically. In addition, the specific import conditions are set forth in Section 2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1686A1.html
      • computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-168A1.html
      • Moreover, Able Infosat admits that it continued to operate until it filed an STA request and an application on April 20, 2007. Thus, it appears that Able Infosat violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating its VSAT system in the United States without Commission authority. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1706A1.html
      • the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Friendship submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Friendship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1708A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-170A1.html
      • Side by Side filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Side by Side violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1717A1.html
      • that the November 28th incident was an "isolated" occurrence and "is not part of a larger pattern." Additionally, Cox Radio asserts that it has retrained its studio operators on the transmission and reception of EAS tests and alerts to ensure that the events of November 28, 2007, are not repeated. III. dISCUSSION 4. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-174A1.html
      • reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the respondent's current financial status. Despite this explicit direction, Discovery has provided no documentation to support its claim that payment of the forfeiture will be burdensome. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Discovery Transportation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1750A1.html
      • without Commission authority after August 28, 2007. By operating earth station E872070 without Commission authorization, Saga apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Saga also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1753A1.html
      • Rules regarding the CB radio service. We caution Barber that failure to allow this inspection by the Portland Resident Agent Office will result in further sanctions and forfeitures for violation of Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jeremy William Barber, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 303(n) of the Act, and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1754A1.html
      • violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Kersnowski and his counsel received the NAL, Kersnowski has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael T. Kersnowski, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1755A1.html
      • cancelled because the KBMS antenna towers comply with Section 73.49 of the Rules. Bennett Broadcasting also argues that it did not willfully violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Bennett Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1757A1.html
      • its authorization did not expire by operation of Section 312(g) of the Act; that it had authority to operate KTMN pursuant to Section 307(c) of the Act; and that it does not have sufficient revenue to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A-O's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-175A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $7,000 to Grinton. Despite repeated contacts by the Seattle Office, Grinton has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, James J. Grinton, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 97.113(b) and Section 97.119(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-176A1.html
      • ($15,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules. First Baptist submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining First Baptist's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1782A1.html
      • failing to maintain a complete public inspection file, in violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MBR received the NAL, MBR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, MBR Licensee, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1828A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-182A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1920A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Cardinal's conduct has continued over a period that began during March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Cardinal's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 15. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 9.5(b) of the Rules. The Commission has, nevertheless, found that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1921A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cardinal, the statutory maximum is $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. The Commission has imposed the statutory maximum penalty against common carriers for the intentional provision of incorrect material factual information. Because
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1937A1.html
      • for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Microboards' conduct has continued over a period that began on March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Microboards' apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1951A1.html
      • and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Leetek's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Leetek's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 11. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for marketing unauthorized equipment. In this case, Leetek marketed two models of unauthorized pager transmitter systems. Leetek's marketing of each of these unauthorized models is a separate, continuing violation. Based on the record of this proceeding and application of the statutory factors listed above, we propose a forfeiture of $14,000
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1952A1.html
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DCS's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2005 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DCS's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 13. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. As set forth in the confidential Appendix, DCS apparently marketed PDTs that were not labeled in accordance with Sections 2.909(d) and 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules. Although it is clear from the record that DCS has marketed such PDTs within the applicable one-year statute
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1960A1.html
      • forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude that Oceanic is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(c) of the Rules. 13. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1961A1.html
      • to the facts of this case, we conclude that LCD Digital is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $16,000 for failing to fully comply with the Consumer Alert labeling requirements in Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, LCD Digital Electronics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for violations of Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1969A1.html
      • 2008. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately six years without Commission authorization, Mathews Readymix apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Mathews Readymix also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1987A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. However, the Commission has substantial discretion in proposing forfeitures and has stressed that digital signal reception capability is of critical importance to a successful digital transition for the nation. In its previous DTV tuner cases, the Commission concluded that applying a proposed forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2042A1.html
      • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CoachComm's conduct has continued over a period that began in May 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CoachComm's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 11. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. CoachComm marketed unauthorized radio frequency equipment. Specifically, CoachComm marketed one system that included the same RF transmitter in both the wireless headsets and command stations. For the apparent marketing of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2051A1.html
      • provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules "shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2060A1.html
      • for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Kissi. Despite evidence that Kissi received the NAL, Kissi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2061A1.html
      • for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Louis. Despite evidence that Louis received the NAL, Louis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Yvon Louis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2079A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2085A1.html
      • not submit a response to the NAL, and on June 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. Mr. Doe, however, did submit a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Doe's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2086A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. New World submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining New World's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2087A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Mr. Aulabaugh. Mr. Aulabaugh has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mark V. Aulabaugh IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2093A1.html
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of Section 54.418(a)'s notice requirements. The Commission has warned, however, that "any omission of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant." Indeed, the Commission emphasized the importance of the ETC requirements
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2107A1.html
      • for a limited number of violations is consistent with past Commission orders. We, therefore, see no reason to reduce the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL and find that the Station is liable for a forfeiture amount of $25,000. IV. ordering clauses 19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 713, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2140A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Medical Services is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2141A1.html
      • delivering at least one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2142A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2143A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2144A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2145A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Universal Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Universal Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-216A1.html
      • prepared and were on a different floor of the main studio location but could not be located because of recent staff changes, and that Lazer has since modified its procedures concerning public inspection files for all of their stations. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Lazer's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-21A1.html
      • May 31, 2007. By operating station WPOG498 for approximately two and one-half years without authorization, Richmond apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Richmond also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2293A1.html
      • South Carolina ) FRN No. 0008498685 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 16, 2008 Released: October 16, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that Rejoynetwork, LLC ("Rejoynetwork" or the "Licensee"), licensee of Station WAAW(FM), Williston, South Carolina (the "Station") apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by broadcasting multiple telephone conversations without giving prior notice to the individuals being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on a review of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2296A1.html
      • ("Tampa Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $16,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2297A1.html
      • apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 by broadcasting each recorded call twice. 9. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." We note that Spanish Broadcasting Systems, Inc., the parent company of each Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
      • Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 30. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
      • issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 30. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
      • issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 30. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2306A1.html
      • of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.47(a) of the Rules. BK submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining BK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2316A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2335A1.html
      • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Brahmin Broadcasting Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 1, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 10. Payment of the forfeiture ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2355A1.html
      • 90% of the authorized power, and failure to maintain a complete public inspection file. In its response, Viva does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests that we cancel the forfeiture in light of its remedial efforts. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Viva's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2391A1.html
      • Indecency Rules as well as the investigation by the Media Bureau considering the allegations in the informal objections to the renewal of Station WQAM(AM). l. "Investigations and Hearings Division" means the Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, acting on behalf of the Enforcement Bureau. m. "NAL" means Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), Miami, Florida (FCC 04-225), released November 23, 2004. n. "Order" or "Adopting Order" means an Order adopted by the Bureaus adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion or modification. o. "Parties" means Beasley and the Bureaus. p. "Rules"
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2437A1.html
      • for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that XLNT Idea's conduct has continued over a period that began in August 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to XLNT Idea's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. As noted above, XLNT Idea marketed three devices prior to authorization: the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter, the Nexis 100AP Publisher, and the Xi440 CD/DVD Printer. We note, however, that the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter and the Nexis 100AP Publisher are identical except that the Nexis
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2443A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Western Aviation, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2449A1.html
      • transmitting equipment on land mobile channels reserved exclusively for use by public safety entities. In his response to the NAL, Doe does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Doe's response to the NAL and his statement of income, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2451A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2457A1.html
      • the base forfeiture of $1,000 against SkyPort and its affiliates for the section 214 authorization and each of the two earth station licenses is appropriate and we propose a total forfeiture of $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that SkyPort Global Communications, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 25.119 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2461A1.html
      • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.3526(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Star Power submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Star Power's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2484A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2503A1.html
      • violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules and submitted a payment in the amount of $12,000 for those violations. Black Crow, however, requested cancellation or reduction of the remaining $11,000 proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Black Crow's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2516A1.html
      • dollars ($17,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 301 and 333 of the Act. Mr. Allred submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Allred's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2550A1.html
      • dollars ($15,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.49, 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(a)(2) of the Rules. Perihelion submitted a response to the NAL requesting to pay the forfeiture in six installments. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Perihelion's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-25A1.html
      • repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. Broadcasters, Inc. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Broadcasters, Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2625A1.html
      • 310(d) of the Act and section 25.119 of the Commission's rules. 6. The fundamental issue in this case is whether FTH violated section 310(d) of the Act and Section 25.119 of the Commission rules by transferring 35 satellite earth station licenses without required Commission approval. We answer this question affirmatively. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, and under Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we therefore conclude that FTH is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $17,500. 7. FTH admits that it failed to apply for Commission approval to transfer control of the satellite earth station licenses. In connection with the stock recapitalization, FTH applied for Commission approval to transfer FTH television broadcast licenses. Notwithstanding FTH's arguments, the Commission did
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-262A1.html
      • WNOV(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin ) Facility ID No. 36069 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 20, 2008 Released: February 20, 2008 By the Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Courier Communications Corp. ("Courier" or the "Licensee"), Licensee of Station WNOV(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the "Station"), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the other party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2666A1.html
      • ("Tampa Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of Sections 17.50, 73.49, 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2673A1.html
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Multi-Tech's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2006 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Multi-Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Multi-Tech apparently marketed the CallFinder device without including in the user manual the consumer information regarding radio frequency interference required by Section 15.105(a) of the Rules. We note that a $7,000 forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2698A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $2,000 to OMI. OMI submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture due to its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining OMI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-26A1.html
      • dollars ($13,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.50 and 17.57 of the Rules. IBC submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining IBC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2715A1.html
      • 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by AMERI-KING Corporation, IS DISMISSED, and the Bureau's 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and the Bureau affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2724A1.html
      • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Lazer Licensees, LLC's Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2732A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Rentex is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Rentex is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2794A1.html
      • forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Visiplex is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for construction or operation at an unauthorized location. Visiplex concedes that it operated its wireless synchronized clock radio systems under call signs WPJU326 and WQBF524 at permanent fixed locations, rather than mobile locations as authorized in its licenses. We find that Visiplex's operation of each of these
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2815A1.html
      • ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Christian Family Network's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART and the forfeiture is reduced to five thousand dollars ($5,000). 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-368A1.html
      • In this regard, it was Forever's "omission" that resulted in its willful operation of a monitoring system that could not detect single light outages, in violation of Section 17.47 of the Commission's Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Forever of PA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-397A1.html
      • one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered her telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-398A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Business Payment Systems, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Business Payment Systems, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-402A1.html
      • argues that it did not willfully violate Section 301, that it did not repeatedly violate Section 301, that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliance, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-403A1.html
      • a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; that it made good faith and voluntary disclosures to the Commission; that it did not act alone in this matter; and that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliances. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-405A1.html
      • the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Tampa Office has since learned that Mr. Gaye passed away. Because Mr. Gaye is no longer living, we cancel the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Henry Gaye IS HEREBY CANCELED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional Director, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 301. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832700006 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, January 9, 2008) ("NAL"). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S:S: 0.111,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-410A1.html
      • the renewal application submitted by the vendor was for its taxi dispatch service license. Five Star further asserts that it has fully cooperated in the Commission's investigation. Based on these facts, Five Star requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-416A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Blue Casa's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8. Blue Casa
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-417A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Sprint Nextel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Sprint Nextel
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-418A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Amp'd Mobile's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8. Amp'd Mobile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-419A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Link Systems' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Link Systems
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-420A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cricket's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8. Cricket will have
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-421A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cooperative Communications' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Cooperative Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-422A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Reduced Rate Long Distance's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-423A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Total Call's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Total Call
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. West Star's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of the six informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and letter orders warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. WorldOne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. WorldOne will have an opportunity to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITEG's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. ITEG will have an opportunity to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-427A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Alltel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 8. Alltel will have
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-428A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. AT&T's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $96,000. 8. AT&T will have
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-432A1.html
      • fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules. Pittman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Pittman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-457A1.html
      • Response and the record, we find that Manning did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Manning Municipal Communications and Television System Utilities, in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-458A1.html
      • Commission to incur costs, with no reasonable hope of recovery. However, we emphasize that our decision to rescind the proposed forfeiture in no way exonerates Habla for its apparent violation of a Commission order. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the amount if four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Habla Communicaciones, Inc. in the March 30, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of a Commission directive IS CANCELED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-463A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-46A1.html
      • August 28, 2007. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 22 months without Commission authorization, Miller apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Miller also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-472A1.html
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DBK's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DBK's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 19. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, within the past year, DBK marketed two PDT models that were improperly labeled, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and Symbol WSS1060, and one PDT model that was both unauthorized
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-473A1.html
      • fence or other enclosure. In its Response, Brahmin requests a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KRAE antenna tower, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Brahmin's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-474A1.html
      • violation was not willful and not repeated, that Metro West took immediate steps to rectify the situation as soon as it was aware of the violation, and that Metro West has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-493A1.html
      • function and evaluate whether Hauppauge violated Commission rules. There is no question that Hauppauge received the LOIs. To date, however, Hauppauge has failed to provide full and complete responses. Hauppauge's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. A. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-497A1.html
      • a separate violation and Pembrook therefore requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced by $3,000. Second, Pembrook requests that the overall fine be reduced by no less than $2,000 to reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Pembrook's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-498A1.html
      • radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 439.850 MHz and 147.560 MHz without a license. In its response to the NAL, Mondgock does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mondgock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-505A1.html
      • Hispanic in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Hispanic submitted a response the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Hispanic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-516A1.html
      • owner. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL issued to Pinnacle must be cancelled and a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $3,000 is being issued on this date to Holmes. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Pinnacle Towers LLC IS HEREBY CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Pinnacle Towers LLC at its address of record and to counsel for Pinnacle Towers LLC at his address
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-521A1.html
      • even if Campbell had provided such evidence, the mere filing of an application would not have provided Campbell any authority to operate a radio station. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Stone Campbell, a/k/a Monroe Campbell, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 5. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-524A1.html
      • DISCUSSION 7. WMGO does not dispute the merits of our apparent finding in the NAL that it violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules and we therefore affirm that holding. Nevertheless, WMGO contends that we should cancel or reduce the forfeiture. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Telefyne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of three informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. GNCW's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of these two informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each complaint, for a total
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-528A1.html
      • for aeronautical use subject to certain conditions. See e.g., File No. 0003100761 (granted November 4, 2003). LOI response at 1. Id. GMS indicated that it subsequently learned that the municipality is not using the system because it was not able to obtain a license to operate in the 4.9 GHz band. Id See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-535A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-541A1.html
      • friends about the radio station equipment and the antenna on the roof, but he was not able to obtain any information from them. Watkins does not address in response his refusal to allow the agents to inspect the equipment. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Watkins's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-548A1.html
      • of $50,000 against COI for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting COI's Worksheets. 8. We also find by a preponderance of the evidence that COI has willfully and repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents, and support its response with the required affidavit or declaration. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its LOI response would be timely submitted. However,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-552A1.html
      • Response, Greene Declaration at paras. 13-14; Irizarry Declaration at paras. 15-18. 47 U.S.C. S: 301; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.903(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.949(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.955(a)(1). See, e.g., Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002) (licensee is responsible for compliance with all Commission rules). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3). (Continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 NON-PUBLIC/FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-555A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-562A1.html
      • of the proposed forfeiture. On January 9, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received IBC's petition for reconsideration on February 7, 2008, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining IBC's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-563A1.html
      • ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 22, 2007, by Communications Relay Corporation, IS DENIED. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Communications Relay Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57 of the Rules. 20. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-597A1.html
      • response on September 17, 2007 ("Response"). In its Response, CB Shop argues that Galaxy Model DX99V does not require certification by the Commission because it is not a CB transceiver. Consequently, CB Shop argues the forfeiture should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-598A1.html
      • 8, 2008, and March 12, 2008. In its Response, Carlsbad Radio argues that it made efforts immediately after the Denver Office's inspection to amend the WGW926 license, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-599A1.html
      • 2008. In its Response, Bravo Mic argues that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, prior to the Denver Office's inspection. Bravo Mic also argues that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-603A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-605A1.html
      • the problem; the tower involved was one of a three tower array; the violation was not willful; Threshold knew about the problem prior to involvement by the Commission; and Threshold has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-606A1.html
      • license on 95.9 MHz. Simon filed a response ("Response") to the NAL on July 19, 2007, and supplemented his response on March 7, 2008. In his Response, Simon states that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-610A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-669A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-670A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Copier Search International, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Copier Search International, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-671A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that DD&S Companies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that DD&S Companies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-741A1.html
      • no shareholders, no officers, and no address. BEC also states that it requested dissolution from Texas State Comptroller on August 17, 2007. As part of its Petition, BEC includes its filings with the Texas State Comptroller. 6. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the $8,000 forfeiture is warranted. Nevertheless, we find that it is appropriate to admonish BEC for its willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-742A1.html
      • not deny the inoperability of the EAS equipment, but requests that the forfeiture be reduced or cancelled based on its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, and its ability to pay the forfeiture because of its financial situation. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-743A1.html
      • Honolulu Office to resolve the issue. After working with the Honolulu Office for four days in October, 2007, JMK filed its Supplemental Response, which reiterated the arguments of its Response, but supplied new, and conflicting, engineering data and information. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining JMK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-74A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-756A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. Traffic Control submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Traffic Control's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-778A1.html
      • toll-free numbers. See Defendant's Response to Complainant's Interrogatory No. 3. Complaint at 14. Response at 5. Complaint at 15. Complaint at Ex. K; Answer at Ex. II. Erdman Technologies Corp. v. US Sprint Communications Company, 11 FCC Rcd 6339, 6342 (May 29, 1996). Answer at 10. Response at 9. Complaint at 15. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, P: 29 (1998). Complaint at 15. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d), (h). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 2 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-792A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Maignan submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Maignan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-817A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Meridian Marketing Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-818A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send two unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-869A1.html
      • it has been operating on one of the EBS channels without authority since 1994 and on two of the EBS channels without authority since 2001. As detailed below, we find that Dakota Central apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on three EBS channels without Commission authorization. 8. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for unauthorized use of a frequency. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess against an entity that is neither a broadcaster nor a common carrier a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-876A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-904A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Alliance Capital's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-905A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Aras's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-906A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for Mario's Roofing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-907A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Tri-State's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-908A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for ESpeed's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4),and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-909A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $10,000 for NEIR's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-910A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-911A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-961A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Mr. Rackley submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Rackley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-968A1.html
      • assessed on Antique Radio Collector, an "individual" engaged in a casual source of income, is excessive when compared to the forfeiture assessed on a business entity regularly engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Antique Radio Collector's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292839A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292839A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292839A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292892A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292892A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292892A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292902A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292902A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292902A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292903A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292903A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292903A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292904A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292904A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292904A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294408A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294408A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294408A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294422A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294422A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294422A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294423A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294423A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294423A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294424A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294424A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294424A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294425A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294425A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294425A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294426A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294426A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294426A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294427A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294427A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294427A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302845A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302845A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302845A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302846A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302846A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302846A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302847A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302847A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302847A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302848A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302848A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302848A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302857A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302857A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302857A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302880A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302880A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302880A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302884A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302884A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302884A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302885A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302885A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302885A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302889A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302889A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302889A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302891A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302891A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302891A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302892A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302892A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302892A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302894A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302894A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302894A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302895A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302896A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302897A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302898A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302899A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302900A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302901A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302902A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302904A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302905A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302906A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302911A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 1 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302911A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302911A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303115A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303115A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303115A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303121A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303121A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303121A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303127A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303127A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303129A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303129A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303129A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303132A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303132A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303132A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303133A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303133A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303133A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303134A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA XX-XXX 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA XX-xxxx FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303134A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303134A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303135A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303135A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303135A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303159A1.html
      • restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 585-770-1499, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303159A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303159A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303160A1.html
      • restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 623-878-4178, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303160A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303160A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303161A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303161A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303161A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303162A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303162A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303162A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303163A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303163A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303163A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303164A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303164A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303164A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303169A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303169A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303169A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303170A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303170A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303170A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303172A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303173A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303174A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303175A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303176A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303177A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303177A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303177A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303178A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303179A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303180A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303181A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303182A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303182A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303182A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303183A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303183A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303183A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303184A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303185A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303186A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303187A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303255A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303255A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303255A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303256A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303256A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303256A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303258A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303258A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303258A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303262A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303262A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303262A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303285A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303285A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303285A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303286A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303286A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303286A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303287A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303287A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303287A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303288A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303288A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303288A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303289A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303289A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303289A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303290A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303290A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303290A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303291A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303291A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303291A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303292A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303292A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303292A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303293A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303293A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303293A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303295A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303295A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303295A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303296A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 2 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303296A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303296A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303297A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303297A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303297A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303298A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303298A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303298A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303299A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303299A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303299A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303300A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303300A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303300A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303301A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303301A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303301A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303302A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303302A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303302A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303307A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303307A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303307A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303308A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303308A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303308A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303309A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303309A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303309A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303310A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303310A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303310A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303311A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303311A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303311A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303313A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303314A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303316A1.html
      • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303318A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303320A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303322A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303323A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303323A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303323A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303327A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303328A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303330A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303331A1.html
      • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached 1 complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 800-205-5789, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303335A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303335A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303335A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303337A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 5 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303337A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303337A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303339A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303339A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303339A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303340A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303340A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303340A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303343A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303343A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303343A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303349A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303351A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303352A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303380A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303380A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303380A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303396A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303396A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303396A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303473A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303474A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303475A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303476A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303477A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303478A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303479A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303480A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303481A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303482A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303483A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303484A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303485A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303486A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303487A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303488A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303506A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303506A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303506A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303507A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303507A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303507A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303508A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303508A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303508A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303510A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303510A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303510A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303517A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303517A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303517A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303518A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303518A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303518A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303519A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303519A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303519A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303520A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303520A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303520A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303521A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303521A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303521A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303522A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303522A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303522A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303523A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303523A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303523A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303524A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303524A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303524A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303525A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303525A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303525A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303527A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303528A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303529A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303530A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303531A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303532A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303533A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303534A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303535A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303536A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303537A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303538A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303538A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303538A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303539A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303540A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303541A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303542A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303543A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303544A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303545A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303546A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303547A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303548A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303549A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303550A1.html
      • company. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305787A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305787A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305787A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305796A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305796A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305796A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305798A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305798A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305798A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305800A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305800A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305800A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305801A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305801A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305801A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305802A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305802A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305802A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305819A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305819A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305819A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305825A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305826A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305831A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305832A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305833A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305834A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305836A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305838A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305841A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305843A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305866A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305868A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305871A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305876A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305877A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305886A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305889A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305892A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305900A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305901A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305902A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305904A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305912A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305989A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-305992A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306002A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306149A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306248A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306312A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306312A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306312A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306338A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306342A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306342A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306342A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306351A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306351A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306351A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306353A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306353A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306353A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306354A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306354A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306354A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306355A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306355A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306355A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306356A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306357A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306357A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306357A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306358A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306359A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306448A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306448A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306448A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306450A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306450A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306450A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306452A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306452A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306452A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306454A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306454A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306454A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306456A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306456A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306456A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306458A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306458A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306458A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306460A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306460A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306460A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306462A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306462A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306462A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306464A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306464A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306464A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306466A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306466A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306466A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306467A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306467A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306467A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306469A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306469A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306469A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306471A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306471A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306471A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306473A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306473A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306473A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306475A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306475A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306475A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306476A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306476A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306476A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306478A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306478A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306478A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306480A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306480A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306480A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306482A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306482A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306482A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306484A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306484A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306484A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306485A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306485A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306485A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306486A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306486A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306486A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306487A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306487A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306487A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306488A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306488A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306488A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306489A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306489A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306489A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306490A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306490A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306490A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306491A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306491A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306491A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306492A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306492A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306492A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306493A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306493A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306493A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306494A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306494A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306494A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306496A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306496A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306496A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306497A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306497A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306497A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306501A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306501A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306501A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306502A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306502A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306502A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306504A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306504A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306504A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306505A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306505A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306505A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306506A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306506A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306506A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306507A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306507A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306507A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306508A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306508A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306508A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306509A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306509A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306509A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306510A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306510A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306510A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306511A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306511A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306511A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306512A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306512A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306512A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306513A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306513A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306513A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306514A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306514A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306514A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306515A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306515A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306515A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306516A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306516A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306516A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306604A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306604A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306604A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306605A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306605A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306605A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306606A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306606A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306606A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306608A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306608A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306608A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306609A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306609A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306609A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306610A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306610A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306610A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306612A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306612A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306612A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306613A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306613A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306613A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306614A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306614A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306614A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306615A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306615A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306615A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306616A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306616A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306616A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306617A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306617A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306617A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306618A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306618A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306618A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306619A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306619A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306619A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306620A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306620A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306620A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306621A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306622A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306623A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306624A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306625A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306626A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306627A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306628A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306629A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306630A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306632A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306633A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306634A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306635A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306636A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306677A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306678A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306680A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306681A1.html
      • individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(4). Although one complainant lists "contacts.com" as the company involved, Commission staff was redirected to your company's website upon entering the internet address "contacts.com." See Complaint filed by R. Eaves, November 29, 2004. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306682A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306684A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306685A1.html
      • rules restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 800-407-6448, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306686A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306687A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306689A1.html
      • company. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306690A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306691A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306692A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306693A1.html
      • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306694A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306696A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306713A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306714A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306715A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306716A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306717A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306717A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306717A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306718A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306719A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306720A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306721A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306722A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306723A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306724A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306725A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306726A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307009A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307009A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307009A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307011A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307013A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307014A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307016A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307017A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307018A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307019A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307020A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307021A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307022A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307023A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307025A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307026A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307027A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307031A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307033A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307034A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307035A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307037A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307039A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307042A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307044A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307174A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307175A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307176A1.html
      • company. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307177A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307178A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307180A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307181A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307182A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307183A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307184A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307185A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307186A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307187A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307188A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307189A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307190A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307191A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307330A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307334A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307336A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307345A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307346A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307348A1.html
      • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307349A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307522A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307541A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307542A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307544A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307545A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307546A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307550A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307552A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307557A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307558A1.html
      • 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307559A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307573A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307574A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307575A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307576A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307577A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307578A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307580A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307581A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307581A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307581A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307582A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307582A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307582A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307588A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307588A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307588A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307589A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307589A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307589A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307590A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307590A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307590A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307591A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307591A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307591A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307592A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307592A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307592A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307593A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307593A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307593A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307599A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307599A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307599A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307600A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307600A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307600A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307601A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307601A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307601A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307602A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307602A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307602A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307803A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307803A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307803A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307805A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-102A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-103A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-104A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-105A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-106A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-107A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-108A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-109A1.html
      • actions it took after it received the LOI, its history of compliance with the Commission's rules, the lack of harm to the public, and the lack of any allegation of misrepresentation on the part of Syntax-Brillian. III. forfeiture order 7. The proposed forfeiture set forth in the NAL was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the guidelines enunciated in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-110A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 10. We recently issued Notices of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-111A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 10. We recently issued Notices of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-112A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 14. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-116A1.html
      • to pay all of its TRS contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by Telrite, in accordance with the agency's "red light" rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 38. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Telrite Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $924,212 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-123A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-124A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-129A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the seven consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $46,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $46,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-130A1.html
      • based on LPSI's response to the NAL. Based on LPSI's most recent Worksheets, and USAC's assessment of the reported revenue in LPSI's Worksheets, however, we conclude that the forfeiture imposed on LPSI should be reduced to $436,765. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Local Phone Services, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $436,765 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 25. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-132A1.html
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 34 unsolicited advertisements to the 31 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $169,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc.] is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $169,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-133A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 130 unsolicited advertisements to the 59 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $695,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $695,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-143A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-three unsolicited advertisements to the forty-one consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SOS Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $244,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that SOS Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $244,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-145A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $84,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $84,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-146A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,377,000 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Extreme Leads, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,377,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above. 10. Payment
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-150A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eleven unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $49,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $49,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-154A1.html
      • version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) In the Matter of ) Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules ) EB File No. EB-06-SE-132 Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to ) Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: June 13, 2008 Released: June 13, 2008 By the Commission: 1. This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b), to increase the maximum forfeiture penalties established in that section to account for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-157A1.html
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $27,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $27,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-161A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least forty-one unsolicited advertisements to the thirty-one consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $239,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Mexico Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $239,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-162A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the ten consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tropical Travel Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $49,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Tropical Travel Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $49,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-165A1.html
      • services, we find that this amount represents an appropriate balance. Our proposed per violation forfeiture of $100,000, multiplied by IDT's thirteen apparent continuing violations, results in a total proposed penalty of $1.3 million. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 25. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 220(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 220(d), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, that IDT is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1.3 million for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-169A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 146 unsolicited advertisements to the 70 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $739,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $739,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-170A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-nine unsolicited advertisements to the thirty consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SMC, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $348,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that SMC, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $348,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-187A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 17. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 18. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-190A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least ninety unsolicited advertisements to the seventy-eight consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $443,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $443,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-198A1.html
      • other device to send at least twenty-nine unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $136,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Sunstar Travel and Tours, Inc is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $136,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-199A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fourteen unsolicited advertisements to the twelve consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $63,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $63,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-211A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $40,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $40,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-234A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 21 unsolicited advertisements to the 17 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tropical Travel Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $94,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Tropical Travel Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $94,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-235A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least twenty-five unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $112,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $112,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-250A1.html
      • Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed June 9, 2008, by Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc. IS DENIED, that the Enforcement Bureau's May 9, 2008, decision IS AFFIRMED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc., licensee of then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) within 20 days from the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-251A1.html
      • there is no evidence to support a finding that they were in retaliation for Mr. Thompson's indecency complaints). See Application for Review at 2 ("I demand a full hearing on this matter before the Commission. . . . to tell the Commission directly about threats . . . [and to hear Commission personnel] respond to my testimony."). Pursuant to Section 1.80(e) of the Commission's Rules, the Commission may institute forfeiture proceedings either via a written notice of apparent liability or via a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(e) and (g). Typically, however, hearings occur "only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture." Id. at S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-252A1.html
      • there and using it as a home base. Since he was not present at the main studio, we need not address whether the unpaid volunteer was managerial personnel. We affirm, therefore, the Bureau's determination that Evangelism willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules. C. History of Overall Compliance Argument 1. Background 11. The Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules permit downward adjustment of forfeitures on the basis of a minor violation, good faith or voluntary disclosure, history of overall compliance or inability pay as well as other factors within the discretion of the Commission and its staff. 1. Discussion 12. Evangelism again claims that it has a history of overall compliance. The Bureau rejected this claim
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-25A1.html
      • of the Program "NYPD EB-03-IH-0353 Blue" ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 25, 2008 Released: January 25, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioner Tate issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the ABC Television Network ("ABC") affiliated stations and ABC owned-and-operated stations listed in the Attachment to this NAL aired material that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Specifically, during the February 25, 2003 episode of the ABC program "NYPD Blue," aired at 9:00 p.m. Central Standard Time and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-261A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eight unsolicited advertisements to the seven consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $47,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-266A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 13 unsolicited advertisements to the 12 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Five Star Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $64,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Five Star Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $64,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-268A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $51,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $51,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-269A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 219 unsolicited advertisements to the 188 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,040,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,040,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-272A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $114,500 for MHJP's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that MHJP, Inc. f/k/a BCJR, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $114,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-273A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $153,000 for NBIC's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9.. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that The National Business Information Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $153,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-274A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least twenty-eight unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $126,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $126,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-279A1.html
      • machine, computer, or other device to send at least two hundred eighty-one unsolicited advertisements to the one hundred eighty-six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that EZPMG, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,545,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that EZPMG, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,545,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-280A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $27,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $27,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-32A1.html
      • programming on its station, and that of the other stations owned by Mr. Bernal, is primarily religious in nature, and that listeners' monetary donations "help defray the costs of station operation and expand the reach of the Bernal ministry." III. discussion 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SM Radio's Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we "take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-33A1.html
      • its Forfeiture Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Application for Review filed by Twenty-One Sound Communications, Inc. IS DENIED and the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-55A1.html
      • Television and Licensees Concerning Their February 25, ) 2003 Broadcast of the Program "NYPD EB-03-IH-0353 Blue" ) ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 19, 2008 Released: February 19, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that ABC Television Network ("ABC") affiliated stations and ABC owned-and-operated stations listed in Attachment A, infra, broadcast indecent material during an episode of the program NYPD Blue on February 25, 2003, in willful violation of 18 U.S.C. S: 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the facts and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-63A1.html
      • Against Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox ) File No. EB-03-IH-0162 Television Network Program "Married By America" on April 7, 2003 ) ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2008 Released: February 22, 2008 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the FOX Television Network stations listed in Attachment A, infra, broadcast indecent material during an episode of the program "Married By America" on April 7, 2003, in willful violation of 18 U.S.C. S: 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances in this case,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-70A1.html
      • and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture, as permitted by statute. 14. Horizon will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed. A. Proposed Forfeiture for Horizon's Failures to Respond 15. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Horizon's failure to timely respond to the twenty-one (21) informal complaints served by CGB warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each apparent violation, for a proposed forfeiture of eighty-four thousand dollar ($84,000).
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-71A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least eighty-six unsolicited advertisements to the fifty-four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that SMC, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $458,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that SMC, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $458,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-79A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $2,591,500 for Hot Lead's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9.. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(f)(4), that The Hot Lead LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $2,591,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. 10.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-80A1.html
      • which was previously denied. Cumulus argues that as an owner of more than 260 stations, its "numerous" violations relative to its size, are very small, and that "it is unfair to portray Cumulus as an entity that does not respect Commission rules." 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Cumulus' Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-90A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 14 unsolicited advertisements to the 14 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $63,000.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $63,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-96A1.html
      • we find the Global Crossing Companies are liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $619,291 for their willful and repeated failure to satisfy its TRS obligations for the 2006 and 2007 funding periods. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,025,921.88 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 254(d) and 225 of the Act and sections 54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-97A1.html
      • timely make required regulatory fee payments for one calendar year. Therefore, we find Compass apparently liable for a $20,000 forfeiture for its apparent violation of sections 1.1154 and 1.1157 of the Commission's rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 39. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $828,613.44 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-08-2794A1.html
      • forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Visiplex is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for construction or operation at an unauthorized location. Visiplex concedes that it operated its wireless synchronized clock radio systems under call signs WPJU326 and WQBF524 at permanent fixed locations, rather than mobile locations as authorized in its licenses. We find that Visiplex's operation of each of these
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1031A1.html
      • in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Sennheiser's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Sennheiser's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of Sennheiser's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1044A1.html
      • The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Corr is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 5. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for operation on an unauthorized frequency. Corr concedes that it operated stations WMV851 and WPJD282 on unauthorized frequencies. We find that Corr's operation of each of these stations on an unauthorized frequency is a separate violation, subject to a separate proposed forfeiture of $4,000. We accordingly conclude
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1184A1.html
      • the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules. ERF Wireless submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining ERF Wireless' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1198A1.html
      • TW4-906T issued to Shenzhen AEE Technology Co., Ltd., for a 2.4 GHz Wireless Camera ("Shenzhen Grant"), along with a "LVD Report" for Shenzhen AEE Technology Co., LTD Model ZT-906T and an "EMC Test Report" for Models ZT-906T and ZT-903T. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-119A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cablevision's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1208A1.html
      • intentionally commit the violations and that it has made significant efforts to come into compliance with the Commission's Rules. In addition, MBHD submits a Declaration from the WYGG consulting engineer that addresses each of the findings in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 12. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining MBHD's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-120A1.html
      • then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 34. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-122A1.html
      • then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that Cox is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 30. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-123A1.html
      • then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 34. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1247A1.html
      • after September 26, 2007. By operating earth station E970411 without Commission authorization, Fox Television apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Fox Television also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the earth station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-124A1.html
      • it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15,000) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1258A1.html
      • authorization, TSA apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules and is apparently liable for a forfeiture. TSA is also apparently liable for a forfeiture for failing to file a timely renewal application for aviation support station KSC8 in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-125A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1264A1.html
      • prior authorization from the International Bureau, a proposed forfeiture of $100,000 is warranted for Teleplus's apparent willful repeated failure to obtain section 214 authority from the Commission prior to providing international telecommunications service. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and the authority delegated by section 0.111 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 0.111, Teleplus, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $100,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-126A1.html
      • a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Time Warner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-127A1.html
      • a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Time Warner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-128A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-129A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Harron is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-130A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-131A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand, five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1327A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Copier Search's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Copier Search International, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1328A1.html
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $10,000 for AZ Prime One willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1329A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Rentex's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Rentex IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-132A1.html
      • it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-133A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-134A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-135A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-136A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-137A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violations of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1386A1.html
      • personnel immediately applied for a license once the FCC agents advised them that a license was required. Third, Bear Creek submits that the absence of prior FCC violations warrants cancellation of the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-138A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Rules. 8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1390A1.html
      • determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Midland's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Midland's's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 13. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Midland apparently marketed two distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT950 (designated by Midland as models GXT900VP4, GXT900VP4K and GXT950VP4) and the model certified under FCC ID MMAGXT850Z (designated by Midland as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1428A1.html
      • in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Iftron's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Iftron's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of Iftron's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess entities such as Iftron a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1437A1.html
      • Cayuga also urges the Commission to cancel or substantially reduce the NAL's proposed forfeiture amount asserting that it is unable to pay that amount and that the amount should reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-146A1.html
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Proxim's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2005 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Proxim's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 12. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. As set forth in the confidential appendix, Proxim apparently marketed AP-4000 wireless access points that are not compliant with the DFS requirement of Section 15.407(h)(2) of the Rules. In addition, Proxim apparently marketed AP-700 and AP-4000 wireless access points that were not labeled
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-147A1.html
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Inter Tech's conduct has continued since 2006 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Inter Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 13. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). We conclude that Inter Tech marketed the unauthorized Cybermax FM TX1 transmitter. Accordingly, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1485A1.html
      • See 47 C.F.R. S:15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J. Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1485 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1485 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1485A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1485A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1505A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1511A1.html
      • also urges the Commission to cancel or substantially reduce the NAL's proposed forfeiture amount asserting that it is unable to pay that amount and that the forfeiture amount should reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1513A1.html
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Inter Tech's conduct has continued since at least February 2008, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Inter Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 17. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each violation involving the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Further, we have found that each instance of marketing of an unauthorized model constitutes a separate and continuing violation. Consistent with recent precedent, we propose a total forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1514A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Amerilist's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. III. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1530A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for DD&S's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that DD&S Companies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1531A1.html
      • information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for So Clean's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that So Clean, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1535A1.html
      • in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that LawMate's conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to LawMate's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. At the time of LawMate's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1538A1.html
      • the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of their demonstrated inability to pay. They also included a photograph of the closed, locked gate to the fence and reported that the gate to the fence is now locked and secure. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Ortega and Juarez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1539A1.html
      • MHz. In its Response, Playa argues that a forfeiture is not warranted in this case because it responded to the San Diego Office and addressed the issue "promptly and fully," and that the violation was not willful or repeated. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Playa's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1540A1.html
      • station without Commission authorization. In its Response, Starfish argues that it operated in good faith and relied on outside parties concerning the licensing process, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of Starfish's demonstrated inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Starfish's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1552A1.html
      • of Section 11.35 of the Rules and willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. Jackson submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Jackson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1566A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Universal Roofing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Universal Roofing d/b/a Universal Roofing & General Contracting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1568A1.html
      • minor in nature, that it was immediately corrected, that it was not repeated, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on Greeley's history of compliance with the Rules, as well as it inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Greeley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1569A1.html
      • Licensee had apparently violated the pertinent statute and Commission rules, and proposing a monetary forfeiture of $20,000. On March 14, 2009, PRC responded to the NAL, claiming inability to pay and requesting that the proposed forfeiture be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1592A1.html
      • we find that @Communications did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to @Communications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1593A1.html
      • we find that PriorityOne did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) issued to PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1596A1.html
      • issues/programs lists. Chladek therefore requests a waiver of the forfeiture in light of the station's unique public service programming and the fact that the station is now in compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1597A1.html
      • units and a mobile relay station on the unauthorized frequencies 469.4 MHz and 464.4 MHz respectively. Despite evidence that Sims received the NAL, Sims has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Sims Metal East, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1614A1.html
      • we find that Naperville did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to the City of Naperville in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1615A1.html
      • we find that Sweetser did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Sweetser Rural Telephone Company, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1618A1.html
      • find that TCO Network did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to TCO Network, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1619A1.html
      • we find that Hinton did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Hinton Telephone Company of Hinton Oklahoma, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1620A1.html
      • The Telephone Company, Inc. did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to The Telephone Company, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1621A1.html
      • we find that Momentum did not willfully and repeatedly violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Momentum Telecom, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 NAL for willful and repeated violations of a Commission rule IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1626A1.html
      • or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1203. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1205. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1626 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1626 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1626A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1626A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1630A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Coastal Steel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1631A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Tri-State's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the 2008 NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1697A1.html
      • the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS-JM2 GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1205. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1712A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for First Alliance's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that First Alliance Security IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1733A1.html
      • pertinent statute and Commission Rules, and proposing a monetary forfeiture of $5,000. On February 13, 2009, Jones responded to the NAL, alleging that the Bureau's ruling is erroneous and that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled or reduced. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-174A1.html
      • Orleans Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $3,000 to Millworks. Millworks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Southern Classic Millworks, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1751A1.html
      • reasonable showing that neither Venali nor customers using Venali services in fact transmitted the faxes involved in the complaints or NAL. We therefore conclude that the NAL issued to Venali should be cancelled. III. ordering clauses 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's Rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $18,000 issued to Venali, Inc. in the September 28, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Venali, Inc., at its
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1753A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Severino. Mr. Severino has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Radhames Severino IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1756A1.html
      • Journal Broadcast filed its requests for STAs. Thus, it appears that Journal Broadcast violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for each station, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its stations without Commission authority. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-175A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $14,000 to Mr. Konarz. Mr. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for violations of Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-176A1.html
      • Juan Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $13,000 to PBS. PBS has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Perry Broadcasting Systems IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violations of Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1772A1.html
      • the restricted frequency bands. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1 defines spurious emissions as "[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1772 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1772 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1772A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1772A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1823A1.html
      • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1823 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1823 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1823A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1823A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1824A1.html
      • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1832A1.html
      • Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. In its NAL Response, Ministerio does not dispute the Bureau's NAL finding that the two announcements at issue violated the Commission's underwriting rules and so we adopt the NAL's apparent conclusion concerning those announcements. Instead, Ministerio focuses on the proposed forfeiture amount, which was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-183A1.html
      • decision in which an admonishment was issued by the Mass Media Bureau concerning a contest rule violation in Kevin Cooney, Entercom argues that, at most, the circumstances of this case might merit an admonishment, but not a forfeiture. III. discussion 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-184A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Medical Services is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1877A1.html
      • IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed August 11, 2008, by CBS Radio Inc. of Philadelphia IS DENIED, and that the Division's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1884A1.html
      • card sales. Accordingly, we find that Cellular Abroad did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Cellular Abroad in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Cellular
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1885A1.html
      • due. Accordingly, we find that Daytona Beach did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to City of Daytona Beach in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1886A1.html
      • not due. Accordingly, we find that Nebraska Supercomm did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Nebraska Supercomm, LLC in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1888A1.html
      • telecommunications carrier. Accordingly, we find that Pilgrim did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1889A1.html
      • calendar year. Accordingly, we find that Visionary did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Visionary Communications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1891A1.html
      • was not due. Accordingly, we find that Zicore did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Zicore Services, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-189A1.html
      • ) FRN No. 0009225210 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 5, 2009 Released: February 5, 2009 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that CBS Radio East Inc. ("CBS" or the "Licensee"), licensee of Station KDKA(AM), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("Station KDKA" or the "Station"), broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof, and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1926A1.html
      • not due. Accordingly, we find that Isan did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) issued to Isan Telecom, Inc. in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1928A1.html
      • year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Plains did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Plains Communications Services, LLC in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1929A1.html
      • not due. Accordingly, we find that Orange did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Orange Auto Sound in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1930A1.html
      • not due. Accordingly, we find that Freedom did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Freedom Telecommunications, Inc. in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1931A1.html
      • year 2007. Accordingly, we find that Allendale did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Allendale Telephone Company d/b/a Allendale Communications Company in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1932A1.html
      • due. Accordingly, we find that Worldwide Marketing did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) issued to Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated in the February 25, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1958A1.html
      • of record used for the November 4, 2008 LOI. The certified mail return receipt confirms delivery of the Follow-Up LOI on March 9, 2009. The facsimile transmittal receipt confirms satisfactory transmission of the Follow-Up LOI on March 4, 2009. To date, Opp Ed has not responded to the Follow-Up LOI. III. DISCUSSION 5. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1968A1.html
      • offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Eric Hoppe, Progressive Concepts (May 13, 2008). Letter from Eric Hoppe, Progressive Concepts, to Peter Waltonen, Esq, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (July 2, 2008). Id. at 2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1968 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1968 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1968A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1968A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1980A1.html
      • another carrier. Accordingly, we find that Clarks did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Clarks Telecom Long Distance in the February 24, 2009 Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1989A1.html
      • maintain a main studio for WFBZ consistent with the Rules. In its response, Sparta-Tomah does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests that we cancel the forfeiture in light of its remedial efforts and history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Sparta-Tomah's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-198A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Alliance Capital willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1990A1.html
      • excessive power and therefore warrants a lower forfeiture amount; and requests a reduction in the overall forfeiture amount based on its inability to pay and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1991A1.html
      • inspection file. In its response to the NAL, Real Life requests a cancellation or reduction based on its remedial efforts, its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, its history of overall compliance, and its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 21. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Real Life's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-199A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for American Locators willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Locators, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-200A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Guardian Steel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. III. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2053A1.html
      • by operator error" and "did not constitute a willful or repeated violation" of the Rules. Additionally, the Licensee asserts that it has provided additional EAS training for each of the station operators to ensure that the events of October 19, 2008, are not repeated. III. dISCUSSION 4. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2069A1.html
      • obligations, and that this was demonstrated by its ultimate award of all promised prizes including bonus items to compensate the complainant for his trouble. Saga urges that the Commission cancel or substantially reduce the proposed $4,000 forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2079A1.html
      • on information provided by WorldNet in its response to the NAL, including sworn declarations from two WorldNet employees, we find that the record is insufficient to support a finding of a willful violation. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL should be cancelled. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the April 3, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order issued to WorldNet, L.L.C. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Ms. Debra R. Schmidt, Director of Telephony Services, WorldNet, L.L.C., 1 Riverfront Plaza,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-207A1.html
      • play in protecting the integrity of its auctions. On balance, and in light of our legal precedent, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $75,000 against Cascade is appropriate in this instance. IV. ordering clauses 15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Cascade Access, L.L.C., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) for its willful violation of Sections 1.2105(c)(1) and (c)(6) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.2105(c)(1) and (c)(6). 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2101A1.html
      • to submit a response to the NAL. On February 4, 2009, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $3,000 forfeiture. On February 24, 2009, Millworks filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Millworks' petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-216A1.html
      • the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to this case, we conclude that Lancaster is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for apparently violating the Commission's underwriting rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Lancaster Educational Broadcasting Foundation, licensee of noncommercial educational Station WFCO(FM), Lancaster, Ohio, is hereby NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, during the period
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2213A1.html
      • ($12,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.51(b) of the Rules. Foundation, Inc. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Foundation Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2239A1.html
      • Brooklyn, New York in violation of Section 301 of the Act. In their response, Clerveau and Edwards deny having a radio station in their apartment and claim that the radio station is operated from a building across the street. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Clerveau's and Edwards' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2303A1.html
      • FCC ID and thus did not comply with Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. Accordingly, we find that Richfield apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing equipment that was not labeled in accordance with Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. A. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules provide that any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any term or condition of a Commission license, permit, certificate or other authorization or any provision of the Act, or Commission rule, regulation, or order, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2305A1.html
      • number 1005854, a violation of section 17.57. Ely filed a response ("Response") on December 1, 2008, arguing that it is not the owner of antenna structure 1005854, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 11. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-233A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Secured Finance willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-234A1.html
      • before us, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules when the Station's "KOST Rewards Program's `Les Miserables' Contest" broadcast information about a Contest it conducted but failed to fully disclose the material terms of that Contest or to conduct the Contest substantially as advertised. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each violation of Section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(c)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2365A1.html
      • Mr. Grover in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Grover submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Grover's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2374A1.html
      • the issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the Commission from assessing whether Uniden's conduct prior to that time period apparently violated the provisions of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. 10. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Uniden apparently marketed three distinct models of GMRS transmitters that were equipped with the voice scrambling feature: the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT018 (designated by Uniden as models GMR1588-2CK and GMR1595-2CK); the model certified under FCC ID AMWUT017 (designated by Uniden as model GMR1558-2CK);and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2375A1.html
      • Act, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the base amount to $15,000 is justified for Global NAPs' apparent repeated and willful failure to provide a timely and complete response to the LOI. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 31. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Global NAPs California, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $80,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2383A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that R.F. Technologies' conduct commenced more than one year ago, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to R.F. Technologies' apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation. 9. Based on the record before us,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2390A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Frank submitted responses to the NAL denying that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and requesting that the matter be dropped. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Frank's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2395A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2395 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2395 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2395A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2395A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2404A1.html
      • amounts. 12. On October 3, 2009, investigation by agents from the Denver Office revealed that Hodson continued to operate KHOD(FM) in Raton, New Mexico, at variance with the terms of its construction permit and Section 73.1620 of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 13. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2426A1.html
      • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2426 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2426 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2426A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2426A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2441A1.html
      • on coordinates given to it by the owner of the building in which it was located, that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2442A1.html
      • it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, that it promptly erected the temporary fence urged by the agent, that the stations gross revenues are marginal, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Evan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2447A1.html
      • Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See FCC IDs XQGQRF600-RE and XQGQRF600-TR (granted: September 27, 2009; grantee: QOMO HiteVision LLC.). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA-09-2447 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA-09-2447 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2447A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2447A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2473A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-24A1.html
      • 25, 2007, but prior to the issuance of the NAL, the Commission approved, and Hensley consummated on June 15, 2007, a transfer of control from Carl C. Kuehn and the Estate of M. Dean Lebo to Joseph L. Green. II. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Hensley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2506A1.html
      • are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The listed video transmitters intentionally transmit radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See n. 11 supra and accompanying text. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2506 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2506 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2506A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2506A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2507A1.html
      • evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Apple is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-252A1.html
      • its Petition, the Licensee seeks reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture in light of its record of compliance, the nature of the violation, and the corrective steps taken to insure its future compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-253A1.html
      • occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Power 7's conduct has continued over a period that began on March 29, 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Power 7's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. At the time of Power 7's apparent violations, we were authorized under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act to assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, a broadcast
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2545A1.html
      • to guide it through regulatory and other legal issues. XLNT Idea states that the proposed forfeiture is a heavy burden. To substantiate these claims, XLNT Idea submits federal tax returns for 2006, 2007, and a financial statement for 2008. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 7. XLNT
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-255A1.html
      • us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Cumulus has previously been found to violate Section 73.1206. Having considered the record in this case and the statutory factors, we
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2568A1.html
      • to the NAL on January 22, 2009. In its Response, Westin argues that the proposed forfeiture amount should be reduced because of it good faith efforts to comply with the Rules and its history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9 The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-256A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Big Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Big Telephone, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2574A1.html
      • a response ("Response") to the NAL on January 16, 2009. In its Response, Nevada Yellow Cab argues that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2575A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Anthony F. Davis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-257A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ben Lomand Rural apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ben Lomand Rural Tel. Coop., Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-258A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ben Lomand apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ben Lomand Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-259A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bellvoz apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bellvoz Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-260A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bee Line apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bee Line Cable IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-261A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Atlantic apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-264A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find American Fiber apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-265A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Action Communications, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Action Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-267A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find 800 Response apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 800 Response Information Services LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-269A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Buckeye apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-270A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Cherokee apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Cherokee Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-271A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find China Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, China Telecom (Americas) Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-276A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Communications Venture apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-277A1.html
      • an annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Aquis apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-278A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Consolidated Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Consolidated Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-280A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clear World apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clear World Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-282A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find D.G.A. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-290A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Isan apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Isan IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-293A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Tennessee apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-294A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Kitchen Productions apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-296A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find KanOkla Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-297A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Latino Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Latino Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-298A1.html
      • an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Threshold apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Threshold Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-299A1.html
      • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Leflore apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Leflore Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-302A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Legacy Long Distance apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-303A1.html
      • the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find M & L Enterprises apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-305A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Liberty apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-306A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Call One apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-308A1.html
      • officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find McClure Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, McClure Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-309A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find VDL apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, VDL, Inc., d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-310A1.html
      • apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-312A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Volunteer apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Volunteer First Services, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-315A1.html
      • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Commnet apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Commnet Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-316A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Momentum Telecom, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Momentum Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-317A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Worldwide Marketing apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-318A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Angel Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-321A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Data Radio Management apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Data Radio Management Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-322A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find MacIntyre apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Scott C. MacIntyre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-323A1.html
      • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Edward Adams Associates apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Edward Adams Associates, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-324A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Zicore apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Zicore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-327A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SI2Way apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, SI2Way, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-328A1.html
      • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Frank apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Wayne Frank IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-331A1.html
      • with the Commission's CPNI rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hopper apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, James T. Hopper IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-332A1.html
      • certificate stating his personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Sherman apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Arthur N. Sherman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-333A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telebeeper apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-334A1.html
      • annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clifford Bade apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clifford Bade IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-335A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find National Brands apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-337A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Netcarrier apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Netcarrier Telecom, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-338A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Network Innovations apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Network Innovations, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-340A1.html
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Nunn apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Nunn Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-341A1.html
      • annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find O.R. Knutson apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, O.R. Knutson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-342A1.html
      • compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find One Touch apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, One Touch India LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-344A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Phillips County apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-347A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Prime Time Ventures apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Prime Time Ventures, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-348A1.html
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-349A1.html
      • an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find ProCom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ProCom LMR, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-350A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Protek apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Protek Leasing Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-352A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find DAR apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DAR Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-357A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-358A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-359A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-360A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Securetel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Securetel Network Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-362A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Shreveport apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-367A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Dixville Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Dixville Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-370A1.html
      • of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find E & F Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E & F Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-371A1.html
      • company with personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Eastern Colorado apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-372A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find EGIX apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, EGIX, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-373A1.html
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SCTelcom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, South Central Wireless, Inc. dba SCTelcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-374A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Specialized Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-378A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find BKT apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, BKT Telecom Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-380A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find First Mile apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-382A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Gabriel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Gabriel Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-383A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find T2 Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, T2 Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-384A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ganoco apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ganoco, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-385A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telchin apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Telchin Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-386A1.html
      • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find General Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, General Mobile Radio IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-391A1.html
      • rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4, 000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-394A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Highland apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Highland Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-401A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find TeleSpan apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-407A1.html
      • frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-426A1.html
      • failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-438A1.html
      • Response, Princess K Fishing Corporation argues it did not willfully or repeatedly violate Section 80.89(a) of the Rules, that it was not responsible for the acts of its employee, and that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-479A1.html
      • for STA. Thus, it appears that SES apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating the Satcom C-3 satellite without Commission authority, and that SES apparently violated the requirement to file a modification application to extend the license pursuant to Section 25.117 of the Rules. 6. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-47A1.html
      • contained in programming that was supplied by the same third-party programmer and involved many of the same advertisers as programming that drew a previous admonishment for violation of the Underwriting Rules. In these circumstances, no mitigation as a consequence of the "embedded" nature of the impermissible advertisements is warranted. B. Proposed Action 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-48A1.html
      • appropriate. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to this case, we conclude that Ministerio is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's Underwriting Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Ministerio Radial Cristo Viene Pronto, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational Station WCRP(FM), Guayama, Puerto Rico, is HEREBY NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-49A1.html
      • calls to action. The foregoing references appear to exceed the licensee's discretion under Xavier because each, in the context presented, refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters that are not necessarily possessed by competitors, or otherwise contain prohibited price information or other language of inducement. B. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-50A1.html
      • substantially fewer and the period of time over which they aired is substantially less. Based on all the circumstances, and after examining forfeiture actions in other recent underwriting cases, we believe that a forfeiture of $2,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Cayuga County Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational Station WDWN(FM), Auburn, New York, is hereby NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-51A1.html
      • rule violations while preparing to respond to our August 9th LOI, that fact alone does not raise a question of misrepresentation or lack of candor. There is, therefore, no basis on which to conclude that PRC failed to observe its duty to be truthful and candid before the Commission. B. Proposed Action 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-538A1.html
      • March 13, 2008, when Discovery filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Discovery violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-539A1.html
      • impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Capital Line's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 180(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Capital Line IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-558A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Modena's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-560A1.html
      • earth station E920702 and earth station E7541 without Commission authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Lockheed Martin also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the earth stations. IV. PROPOSED FORFEITURE 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-588A1.html
      • at 9026 West Brudick Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Skalecki reports that he operates a weather monitoring station from that property, but claims that the unlicensed broadcast station was operating from another nearby residence on which several antennas are located. IV. DISCUSSION 13. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Skalecki's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-669A1.html
      • that any of the 249 non-DTV compliant receivers were imported prior to March 1, 2007, and sold by Hannspree in their two California-based retail stores from their inventory, then we should reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture accordingly. III. Discussion 9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 10. We
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-697A1.html
      • pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. SkyPort has failed to either respond to the NAL or pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-728A1.html
      • In addition, Saga argues that imposing the proposed forfeiture for operation of its earth station without a license would be contrary to the public interest. Saga argues that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 8. Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-765A1.html
      • a maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that WorldNet's failure to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants an increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to compromise the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-779A1.html
      • No. 200932080039 Boston, Massachusetts ) FRN 0005069802 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 8, 2009 Released: April 8, 2009 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Greater Boston Radio, Inc. ("Greater Boston" or the "Licensee"), licensee of Station WMJX(FM), Boston, Massachusetts ("Station WMJX" or the "Station"), broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof, and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-79A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Bright House's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-80A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-812A1.html
      • eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Bethune-Cookman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Bethune-Cookman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-81A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Charter's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-82A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Harron's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-830A1.html
      • relocated in July 2007. ICTI also admits that it did not notify the Commission that the Station's main studio had been relocated, as required by the rule. As a result of these facts, we find that ICTI has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules set a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the main studio requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-831A1.html
      • "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.237(a). The grant of certification for the Listentech LT700 was issued on June 8, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-83A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Comcast's failure to even attempt to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-84A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Suddenlink's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-85A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-897A1.html
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against 1st United Tel-Com, Inc. ("1st United" or "Company"). 1st United violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. 1st United acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to 1st United a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on 1st United's apparent violation of a Bureau's directive. The NAL gave 1st United the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-90A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Kauai NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-936A1.html
      • to submit a response to the NAL. On December 9, 2008, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $25,000 forfeiture. On January 12, 2009, Rama filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-93A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Oahu Central NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-94A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's apparent failure to comply with the Cox NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture. Misconduct
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-95A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Midcontinent's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-991A1.html
      • the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least one unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that One Stop Motors, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that One Stop Motors, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292987A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292988A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292989A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292990A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292991A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292992A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292993A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292994A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292995A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292996A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292997A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292998A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292999A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293000A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293001A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293002A1.html
      • company. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293010A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293011A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293012A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293013A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293014A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293015A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293016A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293017A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293018A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293019A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293021A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293023A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293025A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293026A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293027A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293028A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293029A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293030A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293031A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293033A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293035A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294409A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294410A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294411A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294412A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294413A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294414A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294415A1.html
      • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 312-380-5416, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294416A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294418A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294419A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294421A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294428A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294429A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294430A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302692A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302821A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302823A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302825A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302826A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302836A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302838A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302839A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302840A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302841A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302842A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302844A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307583A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307584A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307585A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307586A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307587A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307604A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307606A1.html
      • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 858-564-2564, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307608A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307610A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307611A1.html
      • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 904-268-7001, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307622A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307624A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307625A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307626A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307627A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307628A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307629A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307630A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307631A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307632A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307633A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307634A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307635A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307636A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307807A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307807A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307807A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307808A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307811A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307814A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307815A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307816A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307817A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307818A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307819A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307839A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307840A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307841A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307842A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307843A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307844A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307850A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307851A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307852A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307853A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307854A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307855A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2394 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2394 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307855A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307855A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307856A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307859A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307860A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307861A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312971A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312972A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312973A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312974A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-108A1.html
      • violations described in the NAL. More specifically, we find that Sonshine willfully and repeatedly violated Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to air required sponsorship identification announcements. 10. We now turn to the proposed forfeiture amount, which in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-114A1.html
      • cross-border 23 GHz operations be licensed, whether the Petitioners clearly understood it or not, and regardless of any oral statements made to their counsel or other representatives. 13. We have examined the applications for review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Region's earlier decisions. Therefore, we deny the applications for review of Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More Enterprises Communications Network, Inc., Uniradio Corporation and Anderson Desk Company, and affirm the Region's Forfeiture Orders finding Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-1A1.html
      • of $30,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to make NANP contributions, and a total proposed forfeiture of $100,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to obtain an international section 214 authorization prior to commencing international service. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 40. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that ADMA Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $672,541 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-25A1.html
      • the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $50,000 to Hawking. Although Hawking received a copy of the NAL, it has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Hawking Technologies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $50,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a) and 15.204(d) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-26A1.html
      • amount of $10,000 for failure to make required regulatory fee payments. Therefore, we find Omniat is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $40,000 for its willful and repeated failure to make regulatory fee payments from 2005 to 2008. 30. Finally, we find that Omniat has repeatedly and willfully failed to provide a timely and complete response to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Omniat's total failure to respond to the LOI warrants a substantial increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-27A1.html
      • Region erred and we affirm the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, the Application for Review filed by CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS hereby DENIED. 28. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. 29. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-34A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 15. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 16. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-09-2623A1.html
      • frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The video transmitters listed in your response intentionally transmit radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 5U.S.C S: 552(a)(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-09-2644A1.html
      • until the filing of its STA request on January 30, 2009, Nevada Sun Peak apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Nevada Sun Peak also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQE205. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1047A1.html
      • considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CruiseEmail's conduct has continued for several years, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CruiseEmail's apparent violations occurring within the past year. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, set the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location at $4,000. Accordingly, we propose a total base forfeiture of $12,000 ($4,000 x 3 stations) against CruiseEmail for its operation of stations KDS, WGM, and WHX at unauthorized locations in apparent willful
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1052A1.html
      • Commission's database. Accordingly, we find that Freedom Communications did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC in the February 26, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1054A1.html
      • NAL on February 9, 2010. In their response, Nierman and Kakadu do not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but request cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1073A1.html
      • for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Eight Friends. Eight Friends has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eight Friends IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1077A1.html
      • 10. None of the foregoing announcements are permissible under Xavier because each, in the context presented is "clearly promotional." Each announcement refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters and their products and seeks to distinguish them from competitors, or contains language of inducement. B. Proposed Action 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the enhanced underwriting requirements is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1079A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Paisa. Paisa has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Paisa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1080A1.html
      • Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara. Neither Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, nor Richard Parara has filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1088A1.html
      • An intentional radiator is "[a] device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S:15.3(o). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201. A certification is "an equipment authorization issued by the Commission based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C S: 552a(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1095A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for AZ Prime One's willful and repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules and related orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1256A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 5. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1257A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 5. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1258A1.html
      • confidential. As set forth in detail in the confidential Appendix, we conclude that Alpheus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 4.9(f) of the Rules by failing to file an electronic Notification within 120 minutes and an Initial Communications Outage Report within 72 hours of discovering a reportable outage. B. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1268A1.html
      • Report. As detailed more fully in the Confidential Appendix, we find that Verizon's Final Report was incomplete and inaccurate in several important respects. We therefore find that Verizon apparently willfully violated Section 4.11 of the Rules by filing a Final Report that was not true, complete and accurate. B. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1274A1.html
      • 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Myers apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on the frequency 95.9 MHz in Lauderhill, Florida on July 21, 2009, February 4, 2010, and March 7, 2010, without a Commission authorization. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1290A1.html
      • into account the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude that a $20,000 proposed forfeiture is justified in light of AllCom's apparent failure to provide a response to the LOI. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that AllCom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1308A1.html
      • Omnibus NAL, each of the companies listed in the Appendix provided evidence that they had, in fact, timely submitted a CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kurt A.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1346A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Blake. Blake has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Dexter Blake IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-138A1.html
      • Forfeiture to Ayustar in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Ayustar submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Ayustar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1442A1.html
      • history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. LSM Radio's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining LSM Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-153A1.html
      • keeping with Commission precedent and that, in several instances, licensees were only admonished for public file violations. Gaston College also asserts that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its record of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1592A1.html
      • ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Taking this standard into account, and based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Nassau Broadcasting III, L.L. C., licensee of Station WWEG(FM), Myersville, Maryland, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-15A1.html
      • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Jerry and Deborah Stevens submitted a response to the NAL denying that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and requesting that the matter be dropped. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Jerry and Deborah Stevens' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1648A1.html
      • in 2009. Under the circumstances presented herein, we conclude that Turner engaged in the unauthorized transfer of control and unauthorized assignment of the 49 subject licenses in apparent willful violation of section 310(d) of the Act, and sections 25.119 and 1.948 of the Rules. 8. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." In this regard, we note that every case presents a unique set of circumstances and turns on
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1654A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1657A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1659A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1671A1.html
      • we find that Ms. Lubin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequency 90.1 MHz from her residence in North Miami, Florida on September 9 and October 22, 2009, and on April 22 and May 12, 2010. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1707A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Christopher M. Myers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1803A1.html
      • Taxi nevertheless continued its unlicensed operations. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American Taxi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 152.3900 MHz from its business in Daytona Beach, Florida on September 27 and 28 and November 22, 2009. 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1842A1.html
      • provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the years prior to 2006. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Amp'd Mobile, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1843A1.html
      • in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1844A1.html
      • of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Capital Telecommunications, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1845A1.html
      • no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1846A1.html
      • writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mechanicsville Telephone Company to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1907A1.html
      • on February 11, 2010. Morris operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Morris operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1908A1.html
      • on February 11, 2010. Brown operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Brown operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1911A1.html
      • find that the companies listed in the Appendix did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1975A1.html
      • for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false certification that it had not violated the Communication's Act or any Commission rules during the preceding license term, although not made with the intent to deceive the Commission, had no reasonable basis and therefore, apparently violated section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S:1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.17 ("... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In any written or oral statement of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-19A1.html
      • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"); and (3) the Commission has not complied with its obligations under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"). We reject these arguments, as explained in detail below. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2030A1.html
      • the unlicensed station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Chery apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating a radio station on 90.5 MHz in Spring Valley, New York without the requisite Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2040A1.html
      • failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2041A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2043A1.html
      • the Rules. Stone/Collins submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Stone/Collins does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Stone/Collins' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2044A1.html
      • Rules. Rodgson submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Rodgson's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Rodgson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2046A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that MGA is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 4. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2049A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2057A1.html
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Meridian's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government for the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2097A1.html
      • MHz, but nonetheless continued to operate on that frequency. We therefore find that the violation was willful and repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Beacon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a Studio Transmitter Link on an unauthorized frequency. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with excessive power is $4,000 and for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2120A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Mapleton apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained at the Station KXDZ main studio. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2156A1.html
      • before us, we find that Mr. Smith apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain all required issues/programs lists in the station's public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000; (3) failure to repaint the antenna structure is $10,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2187A1.html
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs." 47 C.F.R S: 74.801 47 C.F.R S: 74.870. 47 C.F.R S: 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R S:S: 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2188A1.html
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs." 47 C.F.R S: 74.801 47 C.F.R S: 74.870. 47 C.F.R S: 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R S:S: 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2189A1.html
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs." 47 C.F.R S: 74.801 47 C.F.R S: 74.870. 47 C.F.R S: 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R S:S: 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2190A1.html
      • Requested, to Comfort Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2191A1.html
      • Requested to Holiday Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2192A1.html
      • to Timber Ridge Lodge at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2193A1.html
      • Receipt Requested to Ridgway at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2194A1.html
      • to Best Western Rambler at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2195A1.html
      • to Platte Valley Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2220A1.html
      • http://www.hobby-lobby.com/jeti-duplex.htm (last visited November 22, 2010). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2226A1.html
      • failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2235A1.html
      • on inability to pay and imposed a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. On February 2, 2010, Ayustar filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its net losses rather than its gross revenues. III. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ayustar's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2240A1.html
      • radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Jammer World is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Jammer World to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2250A1.html
      • 14. We therefore find that East Buchanan is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of $45,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing aid- compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) for willful and repeated violation of sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and 20.19(d)(3(ii) of the Rules. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this Notice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2268A1.html
      • main studio does not have any designated personnel. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that J.M.J. Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station WQOR main studio during regular business hours. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2276A1.html
      • violation also occurred on more than one day, and was therefore repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Coss apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KCKX(AM) in accordance with the station's authorized power as specified on its license. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2277A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for General Equipment's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2282A1.html
      • information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2295A1.html
      • lease, noncompliant radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Everbuying.com is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Everbuying.com to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2306A1.html
      • Mr. de Almeida submitted a response to the Second NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture based on his claim that he did not operate a radio transmitter on an unlicensed basis and his inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. de Almeida's responses, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2309A1.html
      • to consumers, and by terminating all business with the entities that the FCC has determined are apparently violating the junk fax rules. We therefore conclude that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL should not be imposed. IV. ordering clauses 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $13,500 issued to CyberData, Inc. in the July 18, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order WILL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2319A1.html
      • licensees have the affirmative obligation to prevent misleading announcements respecting the contests that they conduct. They cannot rely on implications to accomplish that result. We therefore find that Good Karma violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the Contest. 12. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the contest rules is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2338A1.html
      • The violation was willful because Dollar consciously and deliberately used its land mobile radios on the frequency 452.250 MHz without the requisite Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dollar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2347A1.html
      • December 22, 2009, when WTB granted BASF's STA request. By operating station WPNZ510 after the license expiration date, BASF apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. BASF also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPNZ510. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-234A1.html
      • reasons, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206. 10. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." In another case involving the same licensee, we proposed a $16,000 forfeiture for very similar conduct. The events underlying that proceeding
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2371A1.html
      • information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2428A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a specific rule
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2435A1.html
      • a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that CT Communications is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in section 503 of the Act.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2436A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2439A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2440A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-24A1.html
      • the NAL on January 15, 2009. In its Response, Mt. Rushmore argues that its violations were not willful, that the violations were corrected after the inspection took place, and that the violations were not discovered during a prior inspection. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-25A1.html
      • Forfeiture to Verizon in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules. Verizon submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Verizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-268A1.html
      • response, Abacus does not dispute any of the findings in the NAL, but requests a cancellation or reduction based on its inability to pay and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-269A1.html
      • unauthorized location because it relied on the coordinates provided in its lease with the tower owner. In addition, SDACH requests that we cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture in light of SDACH's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining SDACH's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-26A1.html
      • maintain the issues/programs lists was not willful, but merely an oversight by new management that took over in September 2006. R-S Broadcasting further claims that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of R-S Broadcasting's demonstrated inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining R-S Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-287A1.html
      • operating station WPQD526 after the station's license expiration date of June 1, 2005, the University apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The University also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQD526. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-292A1.html
      • Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-293A1.html
      • Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-390A1.html
      • no grant of authority ever issued by the Commission approving an assignment or transfer of control of station licenses concerning this frequency to Lubbock Aero. Thus, it appears that Lubbock Aero violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 123.300 MHz without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was committing or omitting the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-3A1.html
      • Such forfeiture amount may be adjusted upward or downward depending upon the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. In the instant case, we have taken into consideration Shop at Home Holding's failure over a period of more than two years to file corrective applications. On balance and after applying the factors set forth in Sections 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 is appropriate in this instance. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Shop at Home Holdings,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-455A1.html
      • the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time broker that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. C. Forfeiture Amount 14. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-456A1.html
      • the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time brokers that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. C. Forfeiture Amount 13. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
      • list on July 1, 2004. See Complaint at 20, S.A. See Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 15 FCC Rcd 3236 (2000); Multimedia Cablevision, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 11 FCC Rcd 11202, 11208 (1996); Comark Cable Fund III v. Northwestern Indiana Telephone Co., 100 FCC2d 1244, 1259 (1985). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, at P: 29 (1998). We note that "Defendants" does not include Verizon Communications. See supra P: 21. See Letter from Russ Smith to David Hunt, Senior Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau (April 15, 2005); see also Consumer.net LLC, et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-492A1.html
      • prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the 503(b) factors to the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Journal Broadcast Corporation, licensee of Station KJOT(FM), Boise, Idaho, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-580A1.html
      • no basis for reconsideration. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed on October 26, 2009, by Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., IS DENIED, and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-586A1.html
      • documents be provided "within a reasonable period of time, which generally should not exceed 7 days." CRFI's explanation that the delay was caused by inadvertence or employee oversight is inadequate. As noted above, inadvertence or employee oversight do not excuse CRFI from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-632A1.html
      • ("Houston Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $18,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-633A1.html
      • ("Houston Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(g), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-669A1.html
      • comply with the FCC's requirements concerning the marketing of radio frequency devices in the United States. Accordingly, we conclude that Phonejammer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing two models of phone jammers in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-690A1.html
      • upward." Finally, WXDJ argues that the "national economy and the decrease in broadcaster revenues in general" warrant a reduction in the forfeiture amount. We reject these arguments as explained in detail below. III. discussion 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-756A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Senat. Mr. Senat has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Balthazard Senat IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-766A1.html
      • impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Cost Crunch's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-777A1.html
      • business hours. HTV filed a response ("Response") on May 22, 2009. In its Response, HTV does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-77A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-782A1.html
      • reduce the TPO during the inspection. Therefore, on January 7, 2010, the station exceeded the maximum TPO and maximum ERP. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Caribevision apparently willfully violated Section 74.735(b)(2) of the Rules by exceeding the maximum ERP for a digital LPTV station. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-783A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Hubbard apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Hubbard apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, overpower nighttime operations, and not maintaining, and making available, a public inspection file are, respectively, $8,000, $4,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-784A1.html
      • before us, we find that World Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that World Media apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, and violation of public file rules are, respectively, $8,000, $3,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-78A1.html
      • violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude under this standard that Doro is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-796A1.html
      • days. As a result, Telefutura's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Telefutura apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment for its authorized DTV broadcast station, KFTU-DT, Douglas, Arizona. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-798A1.html
      • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1219542, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Burken received the NAL, Burken has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Burken Broadcasting, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-799A1.html
      • for operation of radio transmitters without a license, in violation of Section 301 of the Act. Despite evidence that Tropicana received the NAL, Tropicana has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Tropicana Products, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-79A1.html
      • the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that East Kentucky Network is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-7A1.html
      • grant of certification for the MSR 300 on September 24, 2009. See FCC ID XOP-5840-SL-3000. See LOI Response at 4 and Exhibit C. Our investigation did not uncover similar evidence with respect to the marketing of the MSR 200. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1205. See LOI Response at 3-4. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-07 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-07 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-800A1.html
      • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1014422, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MRBI received the NAL, MRBI has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-801A1.html
      • with a valid authorization granted by the Commission, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Shimmick-Obayashi received the NAL, Shimmick-Obayashi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-80A1.html
      • to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-81A1.html
      • Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that TCT Mobile is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to file the required status reports in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules and for its apparent willful violation of a Commission order to provide information. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-829A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Rolon. Rolon has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marixsa Rolon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-82A1.html
      • Communications, Inc. (October 14, 2009). See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Esq. and Denise N. Smith, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 13, 2009). Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). To date, Firefly still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-830A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Reid. Reid has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ronald Reid IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-83A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-84A1.html
      • the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that Airo is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-85A1.html
      • Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 P: 112. We note that 7-Eleven's web site promotes four handset models for use with its SPEAK OUT program: the Sanyo 2400, LG5225, Nokia 1600 and Motorola C139. See http://www.7-eleven.com/NewsRoom/NewsRoom2008/7ElevenMakesPrepaidWirelessMor e Competitive. Thus, it does not appear that 7-Eleven falls within the de minimis exception. See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-90A1.html
      • ECPI in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules. ECPI submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining ECPI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-912A1.html
      • or other notice from the NANP administrator. See Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896, P: 5, n.22 (2003). See Aug. 6, 2009 Supp. LOI Response at 2; 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(e)(3). Id. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 52.17, 52.32, 54.706, 54.708, 54.711, 64.604 and 64.1195. 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(e)(3). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-912 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-912 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-912A1.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-913A1.html
      • not condition payment on receipt of an invoice or other notice from the NANP administrator. See 47 U.S.C. S: 254(d); 47 C.F.R. S: 54.706. See also Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896, P: 5, note 22 (2003) 47 C.F.R. S:S: 52.17, 52.32, 54.706, 54.711, 64.604 and 64.1195. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-913 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-913 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-913A1.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-930A1.html
      • John Marick, CEO, Consumer Cellular, to Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 11, 2009) ("LOI Response"). LOI Response at 1. Id. at 2. LOI Response at 1-2. See Consumer Cellular, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report (filed November 8, 2009) at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020347130. LOI Response at 2. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-931A1.html
      • $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry); Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3688 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry). 47 U.S.C. S: 610(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-932A1.html
      • benchmarks is appropriate with regard to "service providers that are not Tier I nationwide providers, including regional and smaller providers, such as Tier II and Tier III carriers, and other service providers such as resellers and MVNOs."). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 2 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-933A1.html
      • such as resellers and MVNOs."). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). To date, Circle K still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. We note that on January 11, 2010, Circle K did file its report that was due January 15, 2010. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-934A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Movida sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.movidacelular.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 P: 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to "service providers that are not Tier
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-935A1.html
      • Commission, to David Inns, President, GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug (December 1, 2009). See Letter from Todd Slamowitz, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP, counsel for GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (December 15, 2009). ("Response") See Response at 2. Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(1). Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-937A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Liberty sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.libertywireless.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 P: 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to "service providers that are not Tier
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-938A1.html
      • See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, DA 10-85 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., released January 14, 2010). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h). See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 P: 112. As of March 2, 2010, PlatinumTel's web site did not evidence compliance with section 20.19(h) of the Rules. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-995A1.html
      • Dad" episode does not excuse in any way Fox's obligation to provide the requested information. In light of well-established Commission precedent, therefore, Fox's failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI and March 19th Letter constitutes apparent willful and repeated violations of a Commission Order and of Section 73.1015. A. Proposed Forfeiture 15. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-132A1.html
      • Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least 15 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Media Synergy Group, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $67,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Media Synergy Group, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $67,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), sections 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(2), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-152A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $77,500 for Troescher's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Troescher Typing Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $77,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-156A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 33 unsolicited advertisements to the 15 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $528,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $528,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-160A1.html
      • machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventy-three unsolicited advertisements to the sixty-nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $345,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-162A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,533,000 for Hot Lead's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Hot Lead LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,533,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-163A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $125,500 for RMG's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that RMG Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $125,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-164A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $806,500 for SMC's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that SMC, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $806,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-165A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $139,500 for Clean Credit's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. I. ordering clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Clean Credit, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $139,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-166A1.html
      • and we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $50,000 for Sunstar's willful and repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(f)(4), that Sunstar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $50,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-167A1.html
      • impose a total forfeiture of $144,000 for Tropical Travel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Tropical Travel Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $144,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and related orders. 7. Payment of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-168A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $45,000 for Atlas's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. III. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Atlas Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $45,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-169A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $257,500 for SOS's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that SOS Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $257,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-170A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $27,000 for Advanced Steel's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $27,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-190A1.html
      • computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 11 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $55,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $55,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-19A1.html
      • its Forfeiture Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Application for Review filed by International Broadcasting Corporation IS DENIED and the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 9. Payment of the $10,400 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order on Review. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-28A1.html
      • in its Forfeiture Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Application for Review filed by Tidewater Communications LLC IS DENIED and the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 14. Payment of the $8,000 shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order on Review. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-48A1.html
      • form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Globalcom's operating authority, including disqualification of Globalcom's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Globalcom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $800,700 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-78A1.html
      • form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of NTS's operating authority, including disqualification of NTS's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that NTS Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $284,250 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-80A1.html
      • have determined that Silv Communication Inc. has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120. 19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Silv Communication Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,480,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules and orders as described above. 20. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1000A1.html
      • consciously operated his CB station with an amplifier, we find that the apparent violations were willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Hays apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and sections 95.410 and 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1025A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Voip Alliance and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Voip Alliance, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1026A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Touch-Tel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Touch-Tel USA, LLC. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1028A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Phone Club and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Phone Club Corporation. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1029A1.html
      • our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nu Era Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1031A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise DigitGlobal Communications and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1032A1.html
      • noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Straightel and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1043A1.html
      • of the Act. American Taxi submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture arguing that: (1) it was operating pursuant to a license, and (2) it was never warned that its actions violated the Act. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining American Taxi's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1050A1.html
      • 12, 2009. In its Response, Lazer Broadcasting argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled, because Lazer Broadcasting is not a licensee, or reduced, because there was no harm caused by its failure to update both antenna structure registrations. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Based on our review
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1054A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Bazile. Mr. Bazile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marckenson Bazile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1062A1.html
      • main studio on the day of inspection as required by section 73.3526 of the Rules. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Wall apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WLSW's public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1093A1.html
      • of the alien ownership restrictions. America Movil is therefore apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $8,000 for its willful violation of section 310(b)(4) of the Act and the 2007 MO&O and Declaratory Ruling. The Commission's rules provide, however, that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation ... and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." We conclude that America Movil's ability to pay warrants an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount. To ensure that a proposed forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1111A1.html
      • communications to facilitate the activities of an adult individual and his or her immediate family members. See 47 C.F.R. S:95.179. A non-individual (any entity that is not an individual - such as corporations, partnerships, associations, governmental units etc.) is not eligible to obtain a license for a new GMRS system. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1123A1.html
      • the public inspection file was not made available at that time. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available, during more than one visit, a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain a main studio with a meaningful staff presence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1142A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1164A1.html
      • WL 242469 (OET, May 13, 1996). The LawMate 500 mW 2.4 GHz and 1 W 2.4 GHz transmitters operate on frequencies outside of the authorized amateur radio service bands, including restricted frequencies listed in section 15.205(a). Thus, these devices are not amateur radio devices exempt from the equipment certification requirements. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1165A1.html
      • models of wireless microphones do not operate on frequencies allocated for low power auxiliary stations under Part 74. See 47 C.F.R. S: 74.802. Accordingly, these wireless microphones are not eligible for certification as Part 74 devices. See e.g. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.216, 74.802(e). The Commission's Rules are available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=201047. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.17 ("... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1170A1.html
      • VNR material seeking to persuade them. We find by a preponderance of the evidence that Fox's airing of VNR material on Station KMSP-TV's June 19, 2006 news program without providing a sponsorship identification announcement violated section 317 of the Act and section 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. A. The Fifteen Day Period for Fox's NAL Response was Reasonable under Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules 16. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules provides that when the Bureau issues a Notice of Apparent Liability, the "[r]espondent will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1174A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Antonio Robinson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1183A1.html
      • of these transactions until after each had been consummated, and (ii) did not disclose four of the eight transactions until the Enforcement Bureau's investigation and only after WCB had granted the applications. The violation periods range from approximately 2.5 months to approximately 3.5 months. 6. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing Rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1194A1.html
      • the file was located. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Spirit apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file at its main studio and apparently willfully failed to make available its public inspection file upon request. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, for AM tower fencing is $7,000, and for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1217A1.html
      • affirmative steps to terminate the lease with the unidentified renter; (4) a broadcasting outfit known as WBIG is responsible for any unlicensed operations on 95.9 MHz and 91.7 MHz; and (5) he does not hold any pecuniary interest in WBIG. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Petition, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1233A1.html
      • they believed the radio station complied with all FCC regulations; (3) they ceased operating the station as soon as they became aware that it was illegal; and (4) they do not have the financial resources to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Alleyne's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1243A1.html
      • measures described above, the unusual circumstances preventing construction, and the appointment of a receiver are all relevant to our consideration of any forfeiture, and in this case to our determination to impose no forfeiture penalty. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., in the above captioned proceeding WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent both by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., at 2200 East Parks Highway, Wasilla,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1244A1.html
      • and based upon additional information provided by RAMCO, we are persuaded that RAMCO did not own the antenna structure during the violations cited in the NAL and agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to RAMCO Broadband Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to RAMCO Broadband Services at 726 US Highway 202 Suite 320-119, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2737. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1258A1.html
      • an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Dezco Communications, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Dezco Communications WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Dezco Communications, Inc., Attn. Ronald F. Zeiler, President, 13506 S. Kenton St., Crestwood, IL 60445. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1259A1.html
      • opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Galaxy Internet Services, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Galaxy Internet Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Galaxy Internet Services, Attn. Robert Carp, President, 188 Needham St., Suite 110R, Newton, MA 02464. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-125A1.html
      • Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See http://www.deadlydeal.com/thecommunity.php?page=19 (last visited on 1/24/2011). We note that the device is currently listed on the web site with the date "January 16, 2010." See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S:1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1266A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $22,000 to Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Judith V. Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1272A1.html
      • unavailable to the public for a period of four months. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that HK Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available the Station KFOX public inspection file at the station's main studio. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1311A1.html
      • that Rapidwave apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating an intentional radiator in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with its Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. 15. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1312A1.html
      • MHz, 5650 MHz, 5670 MHz, and 5725 MHz in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Sling apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on January 5 and 10, 2011. 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1313A1.html
      • Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ayustar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1314A1.html
      • on the frequencies 5540 MHz or 5600 MHz in Kansas City, Missouri. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Insight apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on February 4 and 18, 2011. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1323A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Rhodd. Mr. Rhodd has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mikhail Rhodd IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-135A1.html
      • 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1386A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $12,000 to Miller Communications. Miller Communications has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Miller Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violations of section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1435A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Patrick Michael Ford, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1468A1.html
      • manual in willful and repeated violation of section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the Rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or any Rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. Under section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, we may assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, broadcast licensee or cable operator a forfeiture of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1475A1.html
      • dispatch channel rather than its licensed main dispatch channel on 159.150 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gutierrez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the LVPD's licensed operations, on February 15, 2011, and February 16, 2011. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1491A1.html
      • PLMRS station without Commission authority from June 15, 2007 until September 10, 2010, when its STA request was granted. By operating station WQFD453 for a period of more than three years after the license had been cancelled, Northeast Utilities apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 6. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1497A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1503A1.html
      • causing direct interference with air traffic control. Power admitted that the station used this transmitter from March 19, 2010 until June 11, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Power apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules by utilizing a non-certified LPFM transmitter. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1505A1.html
      • file maintenance"; (4) its broadcast of "programming responsive to community needs and interests during the two years prior to the NAL," and (5) its post-inspection efforts to remedy the public inspection file violation. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining CBC's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1506A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 8. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand, five hundred dollars ($17,500) for violations of sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), 11.35(a), 73.3526, and 74.532(e) of the Commission's rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1528A1.html
      • tower rules and $10,000 for the apparent violation of the Commission's public inspection file requirements. On December 19, 2008, Taylor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Taylor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1529A1.html
      • Act and section 63.18 of the Rules because it failed to obtain Commission approval before providing international telecommunications service. The Commission has consistently imposed forfeiture penalties in the amount of $100,000 for failing to obtain an international section 214 authorization before providing international telecommunications service. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." There is no evidence before us to suggest that the base amount should be adjusted in any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1536A1.html
      • in turn, could have impacted the Auction No. 86 results. Thus, the Commission was unable to determine both the actual amount owed by VTel, and whether VTel was still entitled to the small business bidding credit, until after Mr. Hewlett's full income was disclosed. 13. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Consistent with Commission precedent, we find that a base forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1538A1.html
      • nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Meriden and Jefferson systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1539A1.html
      • does not nullify or mitigate any prior violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file the required FCC Form 320s for the Perry and Lecompton systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1540A1.html
      • does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Pottawatomie system for calendar years 2009 and 2010. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1572A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to Sling. Sling has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Sling Broadband, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1577A1.html
      • acknowledging that he committed the violation, but denying that he "used the radio knowing that it was illegal." Mr. Lindor also requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture because he asserts that he cannot afford the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lindor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1578A1.html
      • the Rules. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Lebron apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1579A1.html
      • "made the changes [he] had to." Mr. Hays requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture, however, because he lives solely on social security benefits and asserts that, as a result, he cannot afford to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Hays's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-157A1.html
      • Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." As we explain below, having considered the statutory factors, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000. 9. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a radio station without Commission authority. Based on the record in this proceeding, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000 for Scottsdale Lexus's unauthorized operations. 10. We note that the base forfeiture amount is subject to adjustment, either upward or downward. Here, however, we find no basis for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1580A1.html
      • total forfeiture of $4,500 for Western Aviation's willful or repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules for the reasons set forth in the NAL and herein. IV. ordering clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1584A1.html
      • apparently willfully violating section 333 of the Act by maliciously interfering with the USCG on Marine Channel 16. In his response, Perka admits to the findings in the NAL, but requests a reduction based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Perka's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1641A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1651A1.html
      • has not been assigned a community unit number or physical system number. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that St. George apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1801 of the Rules by failing to submit a registration statement with the Commission on FCC Form 322. 11. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000; and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. Cable signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1661A1.html
      • Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers, and Other Jamming Devices, Retailers Advised that the Marketing or Sale of Devices Designed to Block, Jam, or Interfere with Authorized Radio Communications Is Strictly Prohibited in the U.S., Public Notice, DA 11-249 (Feb. 9, 2011), available at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement; New Generation Hobbies, Citation, DA 11-1164 (July 1, 2011). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5). See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See id. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). We expressly reserve the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1675A1.html
      • NAL, we will not consider them here. 8. We also deny Mr. Skalecki's request for an evidentiary hearing under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, which states that "[a]t the discretion of the Commission, a forfeiture penalty may be determined against a person .. after notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Commission or an administrative law judge...." Section 1.80(g) of the Rules states that procedures for hearings "will ordinarily be followed only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture...." Section 1.80(g) of the Rules further states that "these procedures may be followed whenever the Commission, in its discretion, determines that they will better serve the ends of justice." Accordingly, the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1704A1.html
      • issues/programs lists and, in any event, were not in the public file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Meade apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WMMG's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public files rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
      • show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 4. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Blue Casa, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on Blue Casa. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to Blue Casa Communications, Inc. WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Katherine Barker Marshall, Attorney, Arent Fox LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-5339. FEDERAL
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1720A1.html
      • for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545 (Enf. Bur. 2003) ($10,000 forfeiture for a non-responsive reply to an LOI); Digital Antenna, Inc., Sunrise, Florida, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7600 (Spectrum Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2007) ($11,000 forfeiture for failure to provide complete responses to an LOI). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See id. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1721A1.html
      • equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Upper Peninsula apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Powers, Michigan. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1722A1.html
      • the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1730A1.html
      • against Mr. Morey for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Morey submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting that he "is in no position to be able to pay" the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Morey's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1734A1.html
      • Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by LSM Radio Partners, L.L.C. IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the forfeiture is reduced to four thousand seven hundred dollars ($4,700). 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1737A1.html
      • was issued after the expiration of the statute of limitations, Clarion claims in the alternative that it is entitled to a reduction in the amount of the proposed forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. II. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Clarion's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1738A1.html
      • that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 8. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of section 1.903(a) of the rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1743A1.html
      • Mr. Fleurinor for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Fleurinor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting the forfeiture "would create an impossible burden for Mr. Fleurinor to bear or satisfy." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Fleurinor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1745A1.html
      • to notify the Commission that it had acquired antenna structure number 1246297. Based on the evidence before us, we find that P&Y Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure number 1246297. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file forms or required information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-174A1.html
      • or cancelling the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for See Through Windows's willful and repeated violation of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows & Doors LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1750A1.html
      • consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Criteser apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1755A1.html
      • it had not maintained a public file since the public library, where they previously maintained their public file, closed "several years ago." Accordingly, we find that R.J. willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a local public inspection file. 9. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000; operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000; and failing to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1756A1.html
      • the San Francisco Office to respond. In his Response, Roberts acknowledges his involvement with PCR, but argues that he is not associated with the transmissions of PCR. Roberts also argues that he is "financially unable" to pay the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1769A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1771A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Intercel, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Intercel WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc., Attn. Joseph Gatt, CEO, 3914 Centreville Rd., Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1775A1.html
      • Mr. Cernogg operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cernogg apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1777A1.html
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for AMS's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NALs and herein. IV. ordering clauses 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1779A1.html
      • and 11, 2011, an agent from the Houston Office observed Station KBRZ operating with its daytime power of 3200 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ACB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1786A1.html
      • Requested, to Fireside Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1787A1.html
      • the Dublin House Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-178A1.html
      • installed at either location from the time Bold Gold purchased the station in 2006 until February 2010. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Bold Gold apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install the required EAS equipment for Station WWRR. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1794A1.html
      • Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 12. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1798A1.html
      • all of the violations set forth in the NAL and requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture due to its limited station funding which "relies entirely on donations from the listener community." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Consolidated Radio's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1802A1.html
      • the gate on the northeast side of the Antenna Structure was still open. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Equity apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the antenna structure with an effective locked fence or enclosure. A. Proposed Forfeiture 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1807A1.html
      • its authorized nighttime, post-sunset and pre-sunrise power for more than one day; and conclude that CRNI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KPIO in accordance with the Station's authorized power, as specified on the Station's license, on more than one day. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1809A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-180A1.html
      • at the Torrance Airport, an action that violates the licensing requirements of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that South Bay Aviation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1812A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1822A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to Spirit. Spirit has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Spirit Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1825A1.html
      • on its inability to pay the forfeiture. On July 7, 2011, Andrews Tower stated that the Tower was "in all respects lit in accordance with Commission requirements" and that it had obtained estimates for the demolition of the Tower. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Andrews Tower's response, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-182A1.html
      • February 25, 2010, by Rejoynetwork, LLC, IS DENIED, and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rejoynetwork, LLC is liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1834A1.html
      • Because he consciously operated with unauthorized amplifiers, we find that the apparent violation was willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Perry apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and section 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter with two amplifiers. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-184A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cricket, the base forfeiture is $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. Given the totality of the circumstances, we find a significant forfeiture appropriate. The Commission has stated that "[we rely] heavily on
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1876A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Unintec, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Unitec WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Unitec Hospitality Service, Attn: Walter E. Bader, President, 122 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80209. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1877A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1911A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that CIT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(1) and 74.851(f) of the Rules by manufacturing and marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, two models of the Modulus video assist transmitters, in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1914A1.html
      • violated section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure for over two months, and by failing to update the ownership information for the Antenna Structure for over two years. B. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. The base forfeiture for failure to make required notifications, including ownership notifications, is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1919A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to St. George. St. George has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, St. George Cable, Inc. LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35(a), 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a) and 76.1801 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1921A1.html
      • IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND MODIFIED IN PART and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, Forever of PA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willful violations of sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Commission's Rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card, check, or similar instrument, payable
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1944A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1975A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $15,000 to Mr. Criteser. Mr. Criteser has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, John E. Criteser, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1976A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Neal Davis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1977A1.html
      • had not been operational since the station was vandalized in December of 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MMG apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KRDD(AM) EAS equipment. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1998A1.html
      • for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for "[e]gregious misconduct," or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an "[i]ntentional violation" or "[r]epeated or continuous violation." 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2012A1.html
      • Commission approval before consummating a substantial transfer of control of a domestic Section 214 authorization. Iowa Telecom did not file an application for Commission approval until December 14, 2009, more than 6 months after its July 1, 2009 transfer of control. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2034A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2035A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a specific rule
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2042A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 5. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2060A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2061A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2075A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2076A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2077A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2078A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2079A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid compatibility requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2080A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-216A1.html
      • public file are reasonable, here, Community Television did not briefly delay access to the file - it denied any access, absent an appointment. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community Television apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527(c) by failing to make available Station KCET's public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-229A1.html
      • recent license application. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that CBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. We also find that CBC apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (2) violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-231A1.html
      • Media East apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at the Station WLGT main studio. We also find that Media East apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file at the time of inspection. 6. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-232A1.html
      • Because Mr. Aversa knowingly operated on Marine Safety Channel 16 and other Marine channels, we find that the apparent violation is willful. Moreover, because agents observed Mr. Aversa's unlicensed operations on three separate occasions (all of which occurred after Mr. Aversa received multiple audio warnings from the USCG), we find that the apparent violation was repeated. 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-246A1.html
      • h. To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether the equipment authorization held by Shenzhen under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should be revoked. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(3)(A), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, whether a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) shall be issued against Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating sections 302(b) and 333 of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules. 20.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-247A1.html
      • research and development and beta testing of the device were ongoing by various manufacturer engineers and a prototype was pending. See LOI Response at 2. We note, however, that Just Driver Training indicated to Bureau staff that it recently returned the unit of the TxTStopper(TM) it had installed to Share. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5). See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-248A1.html
      • a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order at issue here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-258A1.html
      • on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 3, and April 7, 2010, Mr. Moreno apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-263A1.html
      • ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Foursquare Gospel for the violations listed above. Despite evidence that Foursquare Gospel received the NAL, Foursquare Gospel has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel DBA Radio Station KFSG FM, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.6(a), 17.47(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-264A1.html
      • on the structure's FAA determination of "no hazard" in violation of Section 17.23 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Waldec received the NAL, Waldec has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Waldec Enterprises, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.23 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-273A1.html
      • that Utah Broadband apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating intentional radiators in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with their Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. 15. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-289A1.html
      • such agreement. We therefore conclude that the proposed forfeiture in the NAL issued to Ureach should not be imposed because it did not have a "high degree of involvement in, or actual notice of, the unlawful activity." III. ordering clauses 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $9,000 issued to Ureach Technologies, Inc. in the July 17, 2008 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-292A1.html
      • subject conversations, without providing the required notice, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206. 8. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." We note that Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., the parent company of the Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-306A1.html
      • Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that AT&T apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-352A1.html
      • inspection file and found that it was missing nine quarterly issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WWIZ's public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-365A1.html
      • We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Think 12 and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-371A1.html
      • and Order have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to provide certain information. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of $29,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each Company listed in Appendix I of this Order is hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARANT LIABLILITY FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty nine thousand dollars ($29,000) each for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-373A1.html
      • than one day, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Spanish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 21241.5 MHz with an antenna azimuth of approximately 160DEG, a frequency and antenna azimuth not authorized in its license. 12. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-394A1.html
      • from October 1, 2009 to March 23, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KFW apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47 of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours between October 1, 2009 and March 23, 2010. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-408A1.html
      • representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. The SecurityMan SM-302T is certified under FCC ID TW4-AT202-900M to operate between 906 - 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-421A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nationwide Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Nationwide Telecom, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-422A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Calmtel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Calmtel USA, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-423A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Diamond Phone and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Diamond Phone Card, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-424A1.html
      • amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise USA Teleport and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that USA Teleport, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-431A1.html
      • one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 16, August 24 and August 31, 2010, Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-443A1.html
      • operating overpower on February 26, 2010, it continued its overpower operations on September 22, 2010 and September 24, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ace of Hearts apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 74.1235(e) of the Rules by operating above its authorized transmitter output power. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for the use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-449A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Kacy Rankine IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of section 301 of the Act. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-457A1.html
      • the consequences of refusing to allow an inspection of a radio station. Based on the record evidence, we find that Ira Jones apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act and section 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to permit inspection of his CB radio station. IV. CONCLUSION 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-472A1.html
      • repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequencies 92.9 MHz, 93.7 MHz, and 104.3 MHz, on March 12, May 6, June 15, and July 23, 2010. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-475A1.html
      • 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules by delivering four unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American West Advertising is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American West is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-479A1.html
      • operating station WPMH780 after the license expiration date, Shubat apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Shubat also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPMH780 while continuing to operate the station beyond its license term. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-47A1.html
      • to Premier RV Resorts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-48A1.html
      • failed to function properly since December 2009, and that effective repairs were not made until April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that NCBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of Station KFSD's EAS equipment. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-521A1.html
      • that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. 19. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Fox is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-523A1.html
      • that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. 15. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Access.1 is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-549A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Aversa. Mr. Aversa has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Vincent E. Aversa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act and section 80.13 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-550A1.html
      • Jerry Russell dba Custom Cable at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-567A1.html
      • on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 16 and June 29, 2010, Mr. Bazile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-587A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-5A1.html
      • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.409. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-629A1.html
      • was notified of the outage on July 8, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Andrews Tower apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Tower after sunset. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-630A1.html
      • of the Tower's lights. Also, Miller did not maintain an automatic light monitoring system. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Miller apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to make observations of the Tower's lights at least once each 24 hours. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-633A1.html
      • took after the agents' inspection on April 8, 2010. The Commission consistently has stated that "corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations." Moreover, Harrah's concedes that it had not even applied for a license until after receipt of the LOI. 8. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a station without Commission authority and a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. Although we find no basis here for a downward adjustment given the circumstances of this case, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the total $13,000 base
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-65A1.html
      • still shows the previous structure owner as the owner. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that RAMCO apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in structure ownership from January 2, 2010 until January 12, 2011. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; and (2) failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-676A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $6,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violations of section 17.47 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-704A1.html
      • 17745. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-724A1.html
      • on the facts and circumstances described above, we find that A Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to comply with the terms of the Order and Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and A Radio and issued pursuant to sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Act. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not specify a base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with a Commission order. The Commission has stated, however that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-734A1.html
      • did not notice the warning alert of the light outage before May 18, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CBS apparently repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act, and section 17.51(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1014523. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-742A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-743A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-802A1.html
      • Act and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, USAT's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 17. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, USAT SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. 18. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion & Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-809A1.html
      • public inspection file and found that it was missing four quarters of issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Pilot Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WIBL's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because Station WIBL's public file was mostly complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-810A1.html
      • "meaningful management and staff presence." Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mattoon Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the main studio for Stations WLBH and WLBH-FM during regular business hours. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the AM fencing rule and $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-812A1.html
      • 333. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). An "intentional radiator" is a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-816A1.html
      • we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, section 1.80, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Frandsen is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Frandsen Media Company, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-824A1.html
      • Mr. Smith submitted responses to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture, his prompt actions to remedy the violations, and his remorse. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Smith's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-825A1.html
      • such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, each cable operator sufficiently demonstrated that it had provided the advanced notice required under our rules. Therefore, we find that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued in the above captioned proceedings WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each counsel of record in the above captioned proceedings. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION P. Michele Ellison Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-829A1.html
      • willful. Moreover, because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Alcime apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-830A1.html
      • Moreover, because the unlicensed operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Ford apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-831A1.html
      • the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Morey apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 88.3 MHz in St. Petersburg, Florida. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-832A1.html
      • more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31 and on October 6, 2010, Mr. Rhodd apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-833A1.html
      • find the apparent violation willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Robinson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-836A1.html
      • we find that the violations of section 303(n) of the Act were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow inspection of radio transmission equipment on May 6, 2010, and June 15, 2010. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to allow inspection of radio equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-860A1.html
      • violation was willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Millwood apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-861A1.html
      • more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 8, 9, and 10, 2010, Mr. Lindor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-870A1.html
      • business hours and did not contain the station's service contour map, political file, or any issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Consolidated Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000, for public inspection file violations is $10,000 and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-871A1.html
      • willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 27, 2010, Ms. Smith apparently willfully violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by Commission agents to inspect the radio installation located inside her residence while the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-874A1.html
      • June 2, 2008, and he submitted cell phone records in support of this claim. Torres also submitted his most recent three years of federal tax returns to support his request for a reduction based on an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Torres's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-876A1.html
      • manager also admitted that he had not been properly maintaining the antenna site. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sickafus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain two of Station WWSM's antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-881A1.html
      • years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Warmath apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file for Station WIRJ(AM). 8. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000, for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000, and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-886A1.html
      • us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Lazer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained and made available at the Station KSSB main studio. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-887A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $15,000 to Brown. Brown has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Robert Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-889A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $15,000 to Morris. Morris has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Lloyd Morris IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-890A1.html
      • history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. World Media's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining World Media's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-8A1.html
      • operating station WPKM300 after the station's license expiration date of April 16, 2007, Call Mobile apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Call Mobile also acted in apparent violation of section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPKM300. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-900A1.html
      • us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available complete public inspection files for Stations KQQZ and KZQZ and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. 13. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with an improper radiation pattern for the pertinent time of day is $7,000, for failure to make required measurements is $2,000, and for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-902A1.html
      • before us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available public inspection files for Stations WQQX and WQQW and willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-924A1.html
      • C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). An "intentional radiator" is a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-926A1.html
      • Because Mr. Clarke consciously operated the station on more than one day, the apparent violation was willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Clarke apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-938A1.html
      • the licensee for violation of section 73.3526 of the Rules. Media East submitted a response to the NAL denying that its public inspection file was incomplete and requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Media East's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-940A1.html
      • Mr. Peter's admitted that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Peters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WHAW's public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-941A1.html
      • station manager confirmed that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ms. Woofter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WVRW's public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-954A1.html
      • lists are available in the Station KSKT-CA public inspection file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Skies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules by failing to maintain the TV issues/programs lists and make them available in Station KSKT's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-971A1.html
      • Ms. Lubin for violation of section 301 of the Act. Ms. Lubin submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture because she claims she did not, and has not ever, operated an unlicensed radio station. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ms. Lubin's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-976A1.html
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. The Commission has found that the marketing of each separate unauthorized or non-compliant model constitutes a separate violation subject to the $7,000 base forfeiture amount. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation, or each
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-978A1.html
      • EAS equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CRS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install operational EAS equipment while the station was in operation. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-982A1.html
      • EAS on more than one day, we find the apparent violation to be repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Comcast apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 11.35(a) and 11.51(h) of the Rules by failing to ensure that its EAS equipment was fully functional for all customers. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-984A1.html
      • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-98A1.html
      • any agency thereof shall be developed, procured, or otherwise acquired, including offshore procurement, under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security.). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-990A1.html
      • Angeles Office, Bondy filed a response on August 21, 2009, arguing that he did not commit the violations, that he did not refuse to allow the inspection, and that he lacks the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-994A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-999A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise 88 Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that 88 Telecom Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-10A1.html
      • more than one person may use the same fax machine. That question is not at issue here and our decision here not to impose a forfeiture does not imply agreement with Progressive Business's views. II. ordering clauses 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against Progressive Business WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), the citation issued to Progressive Business, Inc. by the Bureau
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-112A1.html
      • or other device to send 40 unsolicited advertisements to the 28 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Laser Technologies is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $252,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Laser Technologies is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $252,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-128A1.html
      • should be reduced or cancelled, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $37,000 for Y Pay More's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Y Pay More IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $37,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-129A1.html
      • apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that STi Telecom Inc. (formerly Epana Networks, Inc.) is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, STi Telecom Inc. (formerly Epana Networks, Inc.) is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-130A1.html
      • We have determined that Locus Telecommunications, Inc. apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Locus Telecommunications, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $5,000,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Locus Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-131A1.html
      • that Lyca Tel, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Lyca Tel, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Lyca Tel, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). . 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-132A1.html
      • that Touch-Tel USA, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Touch-Tel USA, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Touch-Tel USA, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-163A1.html
      • conclude that Travel Club Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,960,000 for its apparent violations of section 227(b)(1) of the Act and section 64.1200(a) of the Commission's rules. V. ordering clauses 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Travel Club Marketing Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,960,000 for willful and repeated violations of sections 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), and sections 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) and 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-178A1.html
      • that Simple Network, Inc. apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Simple Network, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Simple Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-179A1.html
      • the outcome of this proceeding. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, the Application for Review filed by Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., IS DENIED, and the Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order on Review. On June 18, 2010, the government filed a complaint in federal district court against Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C. for enforcement of the $4,000 forfeiture, U.S. v. Saga Communications of New England, LLC, Civ. No. 10-12407 (E.D. MI). On July 15, 2010, the court
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-42A1.html
      • NANP invoices because the invoices were mailed to the wrong address and ADMA never received them. Third, ADMA argues that portions of the forfeiture are outside the applicable statute of limitations. Each of these arguments is addressed in detail below. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b)(1) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-48A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,607,500 for Mexico Marketing's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Mexico Marketing, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,607,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200 (a)(3), and the related orders as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-49A1.html
      • $72,000 for Travelcomm's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. Thus, a total forfeiture of $72,000 is imposed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $72,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating sections 227(b)(1)(B) and 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 227(b)(1)(B), 227(b)(1)(C), and sections 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3), and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-58A1.html
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 17 unsolicited advertisements to the 17 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-61A1.html
      • the Commission's rules by delivering 43 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the 33 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Security First of Alabama, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $342,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Security First of Alabama, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $342,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), and section 64.1200(a)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(2). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-85A1.html
      • device to send 51 unsolicited advertisements to the 48 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $315,500. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $315,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-88A1.html
      • determined that Norristown Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Norristown Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,500,000. V. Ordering Clauses 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Norristown Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,500,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-89A1.html
      • Main Street Telephone Company apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Main Street Telephone Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,200,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Main Street Telephone Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,200,000, for willful or repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-90A1.html
      • We have determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. I. ORDERING CLAUSES 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-91A1.html
      • We have determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. V. Ordering Clauses 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-95A1.html
      • other device to send 31 unsolicited advertisements to the 30 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $295,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 193, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $295,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-1038A1.html
      • for inspection, we find the apparent violation willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on February 25, 2012, Mr. Ragan apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his radio station and equipment. C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-107A1.html
      • Pompano Beach. Furthermore, the Miami Office confirmed that Mr. Dorvilus registered the domain name for www.visionfm.org, and is doing business as "Radio VisionFM 927, Inc." Because Mr. Dorvilus operated this station consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-108A1.html
      • admitting that he allowed someone to place radio equipment in his space but denying participation in the "breaking of any law." Mr. Clarke also requested a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Clarke's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-109A1.html
      • station's main studio approximately eight months prior to the inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Casarez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KCRX(AM) EAS equipment. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-111A1.html
      • more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-112A1.html
      • and on more than one day, the apparent violation was both willful and repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cheriza apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-115A1.html
      • was not willful, that it made a good faith effort to comply with the Rules, and that it paid a third-party radio company to program its radios to ensure no violations took place. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Cerritos Ford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-136A1.html
      • station had ever maintained these items in its public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that L&R apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-157A1.html
      • single public inspection file contained no issues/programs lists after 2001. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KM Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for Stations KQMG and KQMG-FM. E. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; (3) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-194A1.html
      • we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Richards TV apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Jerusalem, Ohio. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-197A1.html
      • on two occasions. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Taylor Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station's main studio during regular business hours. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-198A1.html
      • did not contain any quarterly issues/programs lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Curran apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirements 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-211A1.html
      • considerations and the admission by the Companies that they failed to obtain prior Commission approval of the license transfers, we conclude that the Companies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express terms of the license, and therefore a forfeiture is warranted. B. Proposed Forfeiture 10. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(6) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate unauthorized
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-267A1.html
      • with the Enforcement Bureau on or before March 1 in EB Docket No. 06-36, for data pertaining to the previous calendar year. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). See EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6928. See id. at 6953; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(6). See id. S: 1.16. See 47 U.S.C. S: 208. See 5 U.S.C. S: 504; 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart K. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-276A1.html
      • operate with full daytime power between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Based on the evidence before us, we find that JHT Ventures apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times other than those specified in its license. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-277A1.html
      • manually reduced power at night and forgot to do so on June 15, 2011. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Super W apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to change power/operating mode at night. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-279A1.html
      • before us, we find that Argos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on November 18, and December 8 and 21, 2011 from two different sites in Puerto Rico. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 12. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-281A1.html
      • FCC Form 854 to update the Antenna Structure's ownership. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hacienda apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in ownership for the Antenna Structure. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-282A1.html
      • Doppler Weather Radar installation serving the Kansas City International Airport, the NAL proposed a $17,000 forfeiture against Insight for violation of Section 301 of the Act. Insight submitted documentation of its finances and requested reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Insight's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-338A1.html
      • asserting that "it was not [his] intention to act against the law," and that he believed his transmitter was able to be used legally without a license. Mr. Lebron also asserted that he cannot afford to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lebron's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-339A1.html
      • more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Darius apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-341A1.html
      • us, we find that Mr. Czura apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. D. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 13. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000; for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-350A1.html
      • that the violation was also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Hoosier apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain and operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of its station authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-356A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-368A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-416A1.html
      • history of providing "high quality" service within its service area; and it further states that if we do not do so, the proposed forfeiture amount would only serve to benefit Pacific Spanish's competitors. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Pacific Spanish's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-446A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Dorviuls. Mr. Dorvilus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Mercius Dorvilus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-450A1.html
      • requirements and thus were unauthorized. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that VPNet apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter with an unauthorized external high-gain antenna. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-475A1.html
      • before us, we find that, on February 29, 2012, Mr. Young apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by a Commission agent to inspect the radio installation located inside his residence while the station was in operation. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-481A1.html
      • $500" based on its inability to pay. Vision Latina Broadcasting also submitted a certification that its main studio is now staffed consistent with the rules and that the station's public inspection file is complete and available to the public. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Vision Latina Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-488A1.html
      • NAL. In its Response, South Bay does not dispute the facts presented in the NAL, but asks that the proposed forfeiture be reduced based on South Bay's inability to pay the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining South Bay's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-522A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Cheriza. Mr. Cheriza has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robens Cheriza IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-524A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Thermitus. Mr. Thermitus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robenson Thermitus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-527A1.html
      • Office's conclusion that it operated Station WEXC's STL on an unauthorized frequency. In addition, Beacon requests a cancellation or reduction on the ground that payment of a forfeiture would pose a financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Beacon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-533A1.html
      • April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Telava apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure after sunset. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-535A1.html
      • "as soon as practicable," Telava has failed to comply with that requirement. Accordingly, we find that Telava willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with Section 17.56(a) of the Rules by failing to repair the Antenna Structure's light outage as soon as practicable. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-536A1.html
      • December 20, 2010. In its Response, Dollar requests that we reduce the proposed forfeiture because the violation was "an unintentional mistake," which Dollar readily admitted, and because Dollar cooperated fully in the investigation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Dollar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-53A1.html
      • for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for "[e]gregious misconduct," or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an "[i]ntentional violation" or "[r]epeated or continuous violation." 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-546A1.html
      • observed Station WOIR operate its station with daytime power of 5000 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ERJ Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-54A1.html
      • Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Classic Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. A. Proposed Forfeiture 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-55A1.html
      • Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that James Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. A. Proposed Forfeiture 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-562A1.html
      • a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Response Card Marketing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ordering clauses 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-56A1.html
      • not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mobile Phone of Texas, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. A. Proposed Forfeiture 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-570A1.html
      • 301 of the Act. IV. ordering clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Alexander Kissi IS DENIED. 9. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-57A1.html
      • the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Air Traffic Control frequency, the NAL proposed a $12,000 forfeiture against Power for violation of section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules. Power submitted a response to the NAL, requesting a reduction due to "financial hardship." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Power's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-590A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Princess K Fishing Corporation IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Princess K Fishing Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for violations of section 80.89(a) of the Rules. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-592A1.html
      • a notice of apparen t liability for forfeiture for a cable television operators repeated signal leakage). 144 ADMA Telecom, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4152, 415354, para. 5 (2011) (ADMA Telecom); see also Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, para. 9; So. Cal. Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 438788, para. 5. 145 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f). 146 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, p ara. 4 (2002) (SBC). 18 Federal Communications Commission A. DA 12-592 Failure to Respond to Commission Orders 42. It is well established that a Commission licensees failure to respond to an LO I from the Bureau violates a Commission order. 147 Such violations do not always
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-59A1.html
      • and sales manager both admitted to the agents that Nassau Broadcasting has never maintained a public inspection file for Station WPLY at its main studio. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Nassau Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating the station in direct contravention of the terms of its station authorization is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-608A1.html
      • for maintaining public file material from the period of time prior to the Station's current ownership, and because the amount of the proposed forfeiture improperly exceeds the forfeiture amounts imposed in similar circumstances." III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mapleton's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-60A1.html
      • operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find that Mr. Thermitus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-625A1.html
      • dates are barred by the statute of limitations; that it has a history of compliance; and that it is unable to pay the forfeiture. We discuss below each of these arguments in turn. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ace's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-63A1.html
      • Commission for this device or any wireless handheld remote controllers. Based on the evidence before us, we find that US Jetting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 15.201(b) of the Rules by marketing and selling unauthorized radio frequency devices. A. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-64A1.html
      • by the Licensee's selection, which undermines the complainant's charges of manipulation. Thus, we are persuaded that no rigging occurred in this instance. 9. Based upon the evidence before us, and in view of the applicable law and Commission precedent, we find that Clear Channel apparently willfully violated section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for each violation of section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-65A1.html
      • rules constitutes a continuing violation. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 14. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides that any person that willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation by a common carrier, up to a statutory maximum for continuing violations of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-679A1.html
      • the Atlanta Office informed the FAA of the lighting outages on Towers 2 and 4, and NOTAMs for those structures were issued on February 10, 2012. 47 U.S.C. S: 303(q). 47 C.F.R. S: 17.51(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 17.47. 47 C.F.R. S: 17.48. 47 C.F.R. S: 17.50. 47 C.F.R. S: 17.57. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S:
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-684A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Taylor Broadcasting. Taylor Broadcasting has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Taylor Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-685A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to R.J. R.J. has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, R.J.'s Late Night Entertainment Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b)(2), and 73.3527(b)(1) of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-702A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to KM Radio. KM Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, KM Radio of Independence, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 11.35, 17.51, 73.1560(b), and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-750A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Upper Peninsula. Upper Peninsula has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Upper Peninsula Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violations of Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-755A1.html
      • of antenna structure number 1214169. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify immediately the Commission of a change in ownership information for the Antenna Structure. C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and failing to file required forms or information is 3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-769A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Casarez. Casarez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rosendo Casarez, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-772A1.html
      • that had it done so, the Licensee would have ceased broadcasting such announcements and its violation would not have been so aggravated. The Licensee also asserts that the forfeiture is excessive in light of its good faith efforts. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-778A1.html
      • any Commission precedent suggesting that its actions in this case were excusable, and we find none. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nassau apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Rules by recording the conversation described in the foregoing without first providing the required notice to the complainant. 9. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture for the unauthorized broadcast or recording of a telephone conversation is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-789A1.html
      • inspection showed this operation was ongoing for several years. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mount Rushmore apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KZMX-FM in accordance with the terms of the station's authorization. D. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of the main studio rule is $7,000, the base forfeiture for failing to make a station available for inspection is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-792A1.html
      • to changes in management. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Empire apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the Stations' issues/programs lists and make them available in the Stations' public inspection files. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating of the public file rules is $10,000 for each radio station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-800A1.html
      • of time. The agents also observed that there was no perimeter fence surrounding the property. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WOYK apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the Antenna Structure within an effective locked fence. A. Proposed Forfeiture 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an AM fencing violation is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-831A1.html
      • June 22, 2011, one of the previous owners, Cohanzick Broadcasting Corporation, was still listed as the owner on the antenna structure registration. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Quinn apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirements 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000 and for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-83A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Cernogg. Mr. Cernogg has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Willis Cernogg, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-846A1.html
      • the current license term. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(12) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-872A1.html
      • in the transmitter's control unit had died, which resulted in the transmitter not shutting down at sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Townsquare apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times not specified in its license. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-874A1.html
      • Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure from sunset until sunrise and to monitor the Antenna Structure's lights as required. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-875A1.html
      • frequencies under its license for Station WQFC968 or under any other license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Aramark apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on unauthorized frequencies. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-876A1.html
      • was involved in the general conduct or management of the unauthorized station and did so on more than one day. Therefore, we find that Mr. Rivas apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-888A1.html
      • more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Knighten apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-889A1.html
      • it is now in compliance with Section 73.1350(a), stating that the "automation equipment used to transition WIPC from daytime to nighttime operations has been repaired and is functioning properly at the present time." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Super W's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-901A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to Mr. Young. Mr. Young has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Arthur Lee Young IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-927A1.html
      • p.m. EST, which is the local sunset time during the month of October. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within the terms of the Station's authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limit is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-931A1.html
      • information was intentional in violation of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by providing material factual information that was incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and not misleading. A. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for broadcasters such as Vision Latina, the base forfeiture is $37,500 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-933A1.html
      • Station KBPO during regular business hours and found the file did not contain any issues-programs listings. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-939A1.html
      • these facts indicate that Mr. Jean consciously operated and/or otherwise was involved in the general conduct or management of the unlicensed station. Therefore, we find that Mr. Jean apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-940A1.html
      • without further expenditure of public resources. Nothing on the record in this case, including A Radio's ability to pay claim, warrants any leniency or mitigation of the proposed forfeiture amount. 5. We have examined the NAL Response pursuant to the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Considering the entire record and the statutory factors listed above, we find that A Radio is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DOC-314802A1.html
      • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 14, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 12-62, in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects a typographical error in paragraph 34 to make it consistent with paragraphs 1, 12, and 32, and read as follows: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,120 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,121 Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. __________________________ 120 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). 121 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Pamela S. Kane Deputy
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-16A1.html
      • that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. 11. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Radio License
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-23A1.html
      • A. We further find that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $432,000 for apparent violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $432,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-24A1.html
      • device to send 97 unsolicited advertisements to the 79 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that National Employee Benefits Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $603,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that National Employee Benefits Group is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $603,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-2A1.html
      • We therefore impose a total forfeiture of $64,000 for Five Star's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. III. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Five Star Advertising Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $64,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 11. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-38A1.html
      • higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Starfone's operating authority, including disqualification of Starfone's principals from the provision of any interstate or international common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 29. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that RB Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $408,668 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-39A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests, however, that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-3A1.html
      • missing a total of fifteen issues/programs lists. Lazer subsequently sought Commission review of the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. III. DISCUSSION 7. In this Order on Review, we deny Lazer's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Pursuant to Section 503(b)(5)(E) of the Act, the Bureau took into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Lazer has failed to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-62A1.html
      • Telseven's principals, including Mr. Hines, from providing any interstate common carrier service without the prior consent of the Commission, and/or revocation of Telseven's and Mr. Hines's authority to operate any business that is subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under the Act. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 34. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of of one million, seven hundred forty-five thousand, three hundred ninety-four dollars ($1,745,394) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/21c.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/21c.txt
      • and British Fax Directory a.k.a. British Fax Service, Gun Court, 70 Wrapping Lane, London England E1 9RL. The Telecommunications Consumers Division has been advised that the information service provider for the remaining nine 900 numbers is British Fax Service, Gun Court, 70 Wrapping Lane, London England E1 9RL. 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The Telecommunications Consumers Division has obtained information that Mr. Goodman is the subscriber for 646-602-0372, an opt-out number that appears on numerous advertisements. The Telecommunications Consumers Division has obtained information that ICN Corporation is the subscriber for 1-800-606-5720, an opt-out number that appears on numerous advertisements. The Telecommunications Consumers Division has been further advised that ICN is listed as the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000245.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000245.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000245.txt
      • No. 915PA0010 Brick, New Jersey ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2000 Released: February 10, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order rescinds a forfeiture against Bruce Alesso in the amount of $2,000 that was issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. The forfeiture was assessed for willful violation of Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301, based on unlicensed radio transmissions made via a marine radio station which Mr. Alesso had in his home. BACKGROUND 2. In response to a complaint from the U.S. Coast Guard that an unidentified
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001010.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001010.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001010.txt
      • inform any party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation. In this case, WLI clearly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by calling Ms. Macareno's daughter and broadcasting the conversation without giving her prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001011.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001011.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001011.txt
      • $2,000 as the base amount for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. In this case, we believe that a forfeiture of $1,000 is appropriate due to the prior unblemished enforcement record of the licensee. IV. Ordering Clauses 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Southern Rhode Island Public Radio Broadcasting, Inc., licensee, noncommercial educational Station WBLQ(FM), Westerly, Rhode Island, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. Section 399b and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001016.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001016.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001016.txt
      • question was 1,000,000 Turkish lira. The Commission has held that licensees are ``responsible for broadcasting accurate statements as to the nature and value of contest prizes, and will be held accountable for any announcement which tends to mislead the public.'' WMJX, Inc., 48 RR 2d 1339, 1357 (1981). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001095.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001095.txt
      • appropriate tool to punish its prior violations and to ensure future compliance with our rules. We believe a $4,000 forfeiture will act as an appropriate punishment and deterrent without unduly disrupting WS's ability to serve the public. Ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, WS Communications, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful and repeated violations of Section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001096.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001096.txt
      • [agency's] discretion.'' Id., 88 F.3d at 747, citing NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974). Infinity has wholly failed to show that there has been any abuse of that discretion in this case. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1206. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001182.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001182.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001182.txt
      • the Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base amount of $11,000 for violations of this nature. The correct base forfeiture amount for operation of a radio station without a valid Commission license or authorization is $10,000. We therefore reduce the forfeiture amount to $10,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean R. Jonassaint, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001190.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001190.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001190.txt
      • Bay Broadcasting Corporation (``Bay'') for apparent willful and repeated failures to broadcast required station identification announcements on radio station KBBR(AM), North Bend, Oregon, in violation of section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1201. We take this action pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. We also admonish Bay for continuing to use a long wire antenna without Commission authorization for radio station KHSN(AM), Coos Bay, Oregon, and for continuing to operate that station's transmitter at an unauthorized location, even after receiving a Notice of Violation (``NOV'') and a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') with respect to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001197.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001197.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001197.txt
      • reduction of the forfeiture amount as a ``small business'' subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (``SBREFA''). III. DISCUSSION 7. Callcomm initially responds to the NAL by stating that because it ``is not the licensee of the transmitter located on Eldorado Mountain,'' the Field Office should have followed the dictates of Section 503(b)(5) of the Act and Section 1.80(d) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), for non-Commission licensees, prior to issuing the NAL. Specifically, Callcomm states that the Field Office should have given it a citation of the violation charged, a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview at the Field Office closest to Callcomm, and an opportunity to cure the violation before it issued the NAL. However, Callcomm overlooks the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001234.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001234.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001234.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to La Favorita in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the noted violation. La Favorita has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, La Favorita, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful violation of Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001235.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001235.txt
      • On July 26, 1999, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a $2,000 monetary forfeiture. Redondo Beach has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, the City of Redondo Beach, California IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act, former Section 90.113 of the Rules, and current Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001294.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001294.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001294.txt
      • indecency standard.'' 15 FCC Rcd at 2518-19, citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 868-70. Thus, we find no merit to Infinity's argument that Reno v. ACLU invalidates the ``foundation of the NAL'' assessed against it. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001335.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001335.txt
      • October 20, 1999 Order for File No. 820EF0021 IS GRANTED. In consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violations, as well as PNI's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, we reduce the amount of the forfeiture to $25,000. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center, at (202) 418-1995,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001428.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001428.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001428.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Leonard D. Martin, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001435.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001435.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001435.txt
      • no reason to await issuance of the guidelines before imposing the forfeiture order in this case. In the absence of any substantive response to our NAL, we impose a forfeiture for the full amount originally proposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Citicasters Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001454.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001454.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001454.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Reier for the noted violation. Reier has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Reier Broadcasting Company, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for failing to enclose its AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence in violation of Section 73.49 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001494.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001494.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001494.txt
      • Petition for Reconsideration raises several issues regarding the investigation, alleges that the record contains factual discrepancies, and contends that facts that were not disclosed in the underlying NAL were used as support in the Forfeiture Order. 5. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that remission of the $7,000 forfeiture is warranted. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $7,000 forfeiture issued to John A. Acconey IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Acconey's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED to the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001495.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001495.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001495.txt
      • Rules, and that the $8,000 forfeiture amounts to an undue financial burden for it in light of the $7,100 budgeted annually for KCOZ's operation. 3. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, in particular the financial hardship that would result from an $8,000 forfeiture, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that rescission of the $8,000 forfeiture is warranted. We note, however, that the actions at issue in this case constitute a violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. We will, therefore, retain a record of this violation, and the violation will be considered in determining an equitable penalty in the event any future violations occur.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001499.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001499.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001499.txt
      • In assessing the forfeiture amount for the tower fencing violation, the NAL noted the inspecting FCC agent's conclusion that Culpeper was aware of the deficiencies in the fence prior to the inspection, making this violation willful. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations, the Columbia Field Office noted that The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines listed a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the fencing violation and $4,000 for the excessive power violation. After considering Culpeper's history of compliance with respect to its operation of WCVA, the Columbia Field Office reduced the forfeiture amount for the excessive power violation to $2,000. No corresponding reduction was deemed to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001523.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001523.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001523.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) to Morradio, Inc. for the referenced violations. Morradio has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Morradio, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b), and 73.3538(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001524.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001524.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001524.txt
      • further discussion. However, as explained below, we conclude that Ms. Gizzo has justified a reduction of the base forfeiture amount in light of her inability to pay. Ms. Gizzo argues that, under SBREFA, she is entitled to reduction of the forfeiture amount as a small business. The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidelines for upward and downward adjustment of forfeitures. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied, 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Under these guidelines, we consider a licensee's ability to pay as a relevant factor in assessing forfeitures. Our review of Ms. Gizzo's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001551.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001551.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001551.txt
      • to the Commission or to a charitable organization of his choice, as determined most appropriate by the Commission; and permit an authorized Commission agent to inspect his residence to ensure all equipment has been removed. III. DISCUSSION 12. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Martin's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001567.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001567.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001567.txt
      • in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on or about January 12, 1999, Station KRXK(AM), violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001574.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001574.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001574.txt
      • Broadcasting, based on the information submitted we would find no reason to reduce its forfeiture amount. 10. Turning to ARS Broadcasting's claim that it might qualify as a small business, we will assume, for this discussion only, that it qualifies as a small business. The Commission, following Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and through its Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. Using this guidance, we do not find that ARS Broadcasting is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture amount. 11. After examining ARS Broadcasting's response to the NAL under Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001575.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001575.txt
      • demonstrate licensee's ``good faith'' effort to comply with Commission rules and justify mitigation). In sum, we believe that the nature of the apparent violations require the imposition of the respective base monetary forfeiture amounts. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Kevin Hackler is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for violating the provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring licensees to obtain Commission authorization prior to transferring substantial station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001579.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001579.txt
      • cases, demonstrate licensee's ``good faith'' effort to comply with Commission rules and justify mitigation). In sum, we believe that the nature of the apparent violation requires the imposition of the base monetary forfeiture amounts. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Kenneth Paul Harris, Sr. is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violating the provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring persons to obtain Commission authorization prior to assuming substantial station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001637.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001637.txt
      • has not demonstrated that its conduct warrants a reduction of its proposed forfeiture. Quite the opposite, WBC's intentional misconduct justifies use of the upward adjustment criteria cited in the NAL. The proposed forfeiture is fully justified and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for violating the terms and conditions of its license and the Commission's rules requiring operation within the parameters set forth in the license, and requiring express permission prior to a permittee's operation or commencement of program tests involving directional
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001640.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001640.txt
      • broadcasts the resulting conversation without giving prior notice, Citicasters' actions appear to be directly contrary to the language of the rule, which requires prior notice before a conversation is broadcast. We also find that Citicasters' conduct is inconsistent with the rule's purpose of protecting parties to telephone conversations. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001667.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001667.txt
      • authorizations for Stations KNKG512 and KWB377 expired on April 1, 1999. Advanced TelCom did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 11, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $3,000 to Advanced TelCom for the late filing of its license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Advanced TelCom's response to the NAL. In the response, Advanced TelCom asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because Advanced TelCom is a very small business whose revenues are
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001695.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001695.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001695.txt
      • of its 1997, 1998 and 1999 federal income tax returns. The tax returns indicate that Booth's gross revenues were $35,049 in 1997, $44,935 in 1998 and $56,521 in 1999. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Booth's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001745.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001745.txt
      • could not be reasonably viewed as applying to the second stock sale. Accordingly, we do not view the parties' actions in connection with the second stock sale (from Mr. Collins to Mr. Rodgers) as the type of reasonable reliance on staff advice that would make a forfeiture inappropriate. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001746.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001746.txt
      • If NATN continues to violate the Commission's universal service rules, such violations could result in future notices of apparent liability proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke NATN's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, North American Telephone Network is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this NOTICE
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.txt
      • of those facts and arguments and reduced the proposed forfeiture from $11,000 to $2,000. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, William L. Leavell's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001810.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001810.txt
      • for Stations KNKL513, KNKD291 and KNKD302 expired on April 1, 1999. Mr. Sanders did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until July 14, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $6,000 to Mr. Sanders for the late filing of his license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Mr. Sanders' response to the NAL. In the response, Mr. Sanders asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because payment of the proposed forfeiture would impose a severe financial
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001873.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001873.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001873.txt
      • it requested reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture to $1,000. On March 3, 2000, the Bureau released the Forfeiture Order, which assessed a monetary forfeiture of $5,000 for willful violation of Section 73.1213(b). DISCUSSION 4. The Bureau issued the Forfeiture Order pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001914.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001914.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001914.txt
      • response on February 22, 2000. 3. In its response to the NAL, PCS Communications raises several issues regarding the Field Office's investigation of Coupe's complaints and alleges that the record is neither accurate nor complete. 4. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and as provided by Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the NAL is warranted. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL issued to PCS Communications, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall by sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001951.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001951.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001951.txt
      • (February 26, 1999), we believe that Three Eagles can only receive limited credit for its prior record of compliance. Based upon our consideration of the record as a whole, we believe a $6,000 forfeiture is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Three Eagles of Columbus, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001957.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001957.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001957.txt
      • expand their stations' original 22 dB( V/m interference contours. We find, therefore, that Chadmoore's and PTT Maple's operation from the Clark Tower site was permitted under Section 90.693(b) of the Rules. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504 of the Act and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the proposed forfeitures is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued against Chadmoore and PTT Maple ARE RESCINDED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001971.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001971.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001971.txt
      • in a forfeiture. Nonetheless, because Diamond apparently believed that American Tower was responsible for responding, and taking into account all the factors required under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we find that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced to $500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Diamond Services Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $500 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Commission's Rules, which requires the recipient of a Notice of Violation to respond in writing within a specific time period. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001994.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001994.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001994.txt
      • basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. Mr. LaPierre has not provided the necessary proof to evaluate his claim. Indeed, he has provided no information at all regarding his inability to pay. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Richard E. LaPierre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002004.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002004.txt
      • Telnet's authorization for Station WSI674 expired on April 1, 1999. Telnet did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until July 2, 1999. On September 10, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $2,000 to Telnet for the late filing of its license renewal application. 5. On November 23, 1999, Telnet filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount based on its financial condition. Though Telnet states that it cannot pay the forfeiture amount,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002005.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002005.txt
      • Therefore, denial of Joy's petition is warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002041.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002041.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002041.txt
      • in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired at around 7:30 p.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on August 28, 1999, Station KWGL(FM), violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002055.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002055.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002055.txt
      • arrangements to paint the tower eventually engaged a second company. By letter dated July 19, 2000, Kona Koast notified the Commission that the tower had been painted and was in compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires that, in examining Kona Koast's response, the Commission take into account the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002090.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002090.txt
      • Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules simply prohibits the offering for sale of the linear amplifiers. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, The Two Way Shop's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002130.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002130.txt
      • for Stations KCA237, KNKC731, and KNKC816 expired on April 1, 1999. Berkshire did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 24, 1999. On September 9, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $4,500 to Berkshire for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On November 29, 1999, Berkshire filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation of the forfeiture. Berkshire asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because, although the Commission stated that it would send renewal
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002145.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002145.txt
      • pay the forfeiture. Preliminarily, Vincent Communications limits its documentation to the revenue generated by paging stations KNKK227, KNKK231, and KNKK233. Thus, we have no information about the financial condition of Vincent Communications as a corporate entity. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Vincent Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for violating Section 1.949 of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002164.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002164.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002164.txt
      • the rule by denying Mr. Huffman access to the public file and by asking him why he wanted access to the file. Furthermore, Riverside also violated Section 73.3526 by failing to place certain materials in the public inspection file, including certain issues/programs lists and EEO Model Program Reports. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002185.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002185.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002185.txt
      • that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on August 25, 1999, at approximately 1:15 p.m., Station KSJO(FM) violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002186.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002186.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002186.txt
      • Rcd 3695 (MMB 1990). Because the material aired at around 8:15 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on February 9, 2000, Station KSJO(FM) violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002201.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002201.txt
      • that the Commission ``take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.'' 6. We have reviewed the calculation of the forfeiture amount. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement'') sets a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. 7. Taking into account all of the factors set forth in the Policy Statement and Section 503(b) of the Act, we conclude that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002285.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002285.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002285.txt
      • fully considered and rejected in the Forfeiture Order. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, KNFL, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002287.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002287.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002287.txt
      • of sex with people knowledgeable in the field. See also King Broadcasting Co. (KING-TV), 5 FCC Rcd 2971 (1990) (broadcast of high school sex education class not indecent because material was clinical or instructional). In contrast, the material in this case cannot be said to be clinical or instructional. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002288.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002288.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002288.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Oregon Pacific. Oregon Pacific has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Oregon Pacific Railroad Company, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002289.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002289.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to La Favorita. La Favorita has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, La Favorita, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 1.89 and 17.4 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002294.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002294.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002294.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D),
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002313.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002313.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002313.txt
      • on the sale, the forfeiture will no longer have an impact upon station operations. After reviewing all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe a $7,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Communicast Consultants, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002314.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002314.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002314.txt
      • station received the consideration of a ``firm'' concert in return for playing ``On A Day Like Today,'' and since the station did not air sponsorship identification announcements when it played the song, the station apparently violated Section 317 of the Act and Section 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002315.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002315.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002315.txt
      • appears that the playing of ``On A Day Like Today'' was linked to the consideration the station received from A&M. Since the station did not air sponsorship identification announcements when it played the record, it apparently violated Section 317 of the Act and Section 73.1212 of our rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002319.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002319.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002319.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to American for the noted violation. American has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failing to respond to written Commission inquiries in violation of Section 1.89 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002334.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002334.txt
      • 3. The authorization for Station KNKO605 expired on April 1, 1999. Mills did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until June 28, 1999. On September 20, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $1,500 to Mills for the late filing of its license renewal application. 4. On November 18, 1999, Mills filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount because Mills provides a ``valuable service'' that ``is needed in the community,'' and ``fulfills the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002335.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002335.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002335.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Econopage is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002358.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002358.txt
      • and Bear Valley has the exclusive right to set personnel policies for the station. Mr. Foster appears to have no current role in the station's operation because he is incarcerated. Under these circumstances, Bear Valley appears to have acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002359.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002359.txt
      • and Bear Valley has the exclusive right to set personnel policies for the station. Mr. Foster appears to have no current role in the station's operation because he is incarcerated. Under these circumstances, Bear Valley appears to have acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002376.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002376.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002376.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, US Unwired is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002393.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002393.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002393.txt
      • Mundo never told Mr. Vazquez-Santos that it intended to record and broadcast the conversation on May 8, 2000 and that it recorded and broadcast this conversation over four stations and on two different occasions. We thus conclude that El Mundo apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002478.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002478.txt
      • authorizations for Stations WRV927 and WXR916 expired on April 1, 1999. Page-A-Phone did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until May 19, 1999. On September 21, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $2,000 to Page-A-Phone for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On November 24, 1999, Page-A-Phone filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation of the forfeiture. Page-A-Phone asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because it tried without success, on at least two occasions,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002486.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002486.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002486.txt
      • it to monitor the site's lighting system constantly through automatic alarms. Finally, Crown argues that the forfeiture should be reduced based on its ``unblemished'' record as a tower owner and licensee. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002523.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002523.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002523.txt
      • person operated the station located at his residence; but he has not done so. During the transmissions observed on February 27, 1999, the operator of the station located at Mr. Martin's residence responded to the name ``Leonard.'' (c) As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Martin's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002665.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002665.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002665.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Ford is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002666.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002666.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002666.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Page-Comm is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002667.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002667.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002667.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Ohio Bell is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002668.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002668.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002668.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Star Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002708.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002708.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002708.txt
      • inform any party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation. In this case, Clear Channel clearly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by calling Mr. Schwartz and broadcasting the conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002724.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002724.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002724.txt
      • willful). Moreover, we reject CBS' argument regarding the popularity of the artists. Neither the statute nor our case law confers upon a broadcaster the right to air indecent language simply because the speaker happens to be popular. See The Rusk Corporation (KLOL(FM)), 8 FCC Rcd 3228, 3229 (1993). 9. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002736.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002736.txt
      • exceeded the commercial limits established in Section 73.670 during the relatively short period covered by the Bureau investigation. Under these circumstances, we believe a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that TELEMUNDO OF PUERTO RICO LICENSE CORP. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.670 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002755.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002755.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002755.txt
      • wireless operations, which typically have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking into consideration all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $6,000 is warranted. Ordering Clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Commercial Radio is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.903(a) of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002810.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002810.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002810.txt
      • has submitted financial data for 1997 through 1999, and has requested that we keep its financial information confidential. After reviewing the financial data submitted, we find no evidence in Skywave's response that would support a reduction of the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Skywave Electronics, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $7,000 for violating the provisions of Section 302 of the Act and Section 2.907 of the Rules, which require radio frequency devices to be properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the Commission's Rules prior to their sale, offer for sale, shipment, or distribution
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002811.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002811.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002811.txt
      • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Checkpoint operated without a valid license for over nine months after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002837.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002837.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002837.txt
      • expected to know and comply with the Commission's Rules, and will not be excused for violations thereof, absent clear mitigating circumstances. GNOTS Reserve has not presented any mitigating circumstances that would warrant reducing or eliminating the forfeiture. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, GNOTS Reserve, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violating Section 80.373(f) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002840.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002840.txt
      • misconduct by Fisher. In addition, we have taken into account the sanctions handed down against other similarly situated licensees. On balance, we believe a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that FISHER BROADCASTING, INC. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.670 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002844.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002844.txt
      • Mr. Foster had ceded control of the station to Bear Valley. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that, upon his incarceration, Mr. Foster ceased having any role whatsoever. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Bear Valley acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. 11. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002858.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002858.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002858.txt
      • note that our imposition of a proposed forfeiture in this proceeding is independent of SBC's obligation to make voluntary payments for failure to perform according to the benchmarks and other parity guidelines set forth in Appendix C of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002915.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002915.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002915.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us. Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $7,000, for willful violations of Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00475.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00475.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00475.txt
      • 33617 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: March 2, 2000 Released: March 3, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against Leslie D. Brewer, d/b/a/ L.D. Brewer's 2-way Radio (collectively, ``Mr. Brewer''), in the amount of $10,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violation of Sections 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b). These violations are based on the marketing of a transmitter not authorized by the Commission. The transmitter at issue was sold to an undercover agent of the Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office. BACKGROUND
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00476.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00476.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00476.txt
      • provided copies of its 1996 and 1997 federal income tax returns with its August, 1999, response and provided a copy of its 1998 federal income tax returns with a supplemental response received September 28, 1999. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Natchez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00485.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00485.txt
      • Mr. James Farlow has raised in response to both the underlying Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") and the Forfeiture Order. The NAL proposed and the Forfeiture Order affirmed imposition of a forfeiture against Mr. Farlow in the amount of $7,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C. ( 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, ("the Rules"), 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80, for willful violation of Section 303(n) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 303(n), and Section 95.426 of the Rules (CB Rule 26), 47 C.F.R. ( 95.426. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the $7,000 forfeiture amount. 2. The Bureau's Norfolk, Virginia, office received a complaint that Mr. Farlow's citizen's
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00511.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00511.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00511.txt
      • and Ordering Clauses 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that WTTW's request for reduction or rescission filed January 2, 1998 IS GRANTED to the extent that we approve a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $5,000 to $2,000. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Window to the World Communications, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational television station WTTW (TV), Chicago, Illinois, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000), for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 399b, and Section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules. 6.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00516.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00516.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00516.txt
      • to Bernard A. Solnik, Esq., Case No. 02120518 (MMB March 25, 1996). None of these rulings contain any analysis or discussion of the digital delay system. Moreover, none of the language in those rulings is inconsistent with the plain language of the rule, which clearly requires prior notification. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00521.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00521.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00521.txt
      • or broadcast at the beginning of a telephone call, if the conversation is already being taped or broadcast. Rather, ``notice of intent to broadcast a conversation [must] actually precede the recording or transmission of the telephone call.'' Id., see also KIDS-TV 6, 14 FCC Rcd 13351 (MMB 1999). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00526.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00526.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00526.txt
      • revisiting issues previously addressed, or for reducing or rescinding the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 915TP0004 IS DENIED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00535.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00535.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00535.txt
      • is establishing a procedure to ensure that certificate violations will not occur in the future; and it is rare for Sealand, which operates almost 40 U.S. flag vessels, to miss the renewal of a Safety Certificate. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 364(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), requires that the Commission, in examining Sealand's response, take into account the nature,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00561.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00561.txt
      • account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Those factors include the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. See also Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules. After considering all of the circumstances, we believe the ends of justice will be served by imposing the forfeiture for the main studio rule violation but canceling the forfeiture for the public file rule violation. 6. With respect to the main studio violation, we note that we recently imposed a forfeiture of $7,000 for willful and
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00569.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00569.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00569.txt
      • not believe that KXLE has presented sufficient reasons to justify reducing the forfeiture amount. Even if the AM equipment had been dismantled for repair on the day of inspection, as KXLE claims, we believe an $8,000 forfeiture amount for the inoperable EAS equipment for the FM station alone is appropriate. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, released December 28, 1999 (base amount of $8,000 for EAS violation). Further, KXLE claims that its lack of knowledge of required EAS testing for the FM station warrants reducing the forfeiture amount. Commission licensees are responsible for knowing and adhering to the statutes
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00571.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00571.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00571.txt
      • submission is not supported in this manner and, therefore, provides no reliable basis for Hoosier's claim of inability to pay. In any event, the material that Hoosier did submit indicates gross revenues of approximately $52,000 for 1998. A $4,000 forfeiture under these circumstances is not excessive. 8. The forfeiture standards in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines sets $5,000 as the base forfeiture amount for a willful violation of Section 73.1350(a). The Field Office and the Bureau reviewed the record, which included Hoosier's operating history and claims of vandalism, and concluded that a $4,000 forfeiture was indicated instead of the $5,000 base forfeiture amount. We affirm that conclusion. IV.
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00572.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00572.txt
      • on April 7, 1999. On April 23, 1999, the Commission's staff returned those applications to Pampa as defective. Pampa refiled the applications on May 28, 1999, and the Commission's staff granted them on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) to Pampa for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Pampa's response to the NAL. In that response, Pampa asserted, among other arguments, that it requested application forms from the Commission on March 24, 1999, but
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00578.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00578.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00578.txt
      • Finally, Western contends that the proposed monetary forfeiture is ``excessive'' and provides copies of Western's 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal income tax returns as well as ``cash flow statements'' from March, April, May, and June 1999. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Western's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00579.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00579.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00579.txt
      • intent, the cited violations were willful. The Bureau also noted that while remedial action to correct a violation is commendable, it will not nullify a forfeiture penalty, and, further, that Northwest had not provided any documentary evidence to evaluate its ability to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407 (Released December 28, 1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00590.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00590.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00590.txt
      • a forfeiture only for the period from December 11, 1997 until October 30, 1998 because WS' application for renewal of license was granted on December 11, 1997, and a forfeiture for violations prior to that time is barred by the statute of limitations. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(A). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00619.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00619.txt
      • Rather, the application or request for program test authority or STA must be granted or WBC must terminate all unauthorized operation of Station WRHC. Otherwise, WBC risks loss of the license for Station WRHC as well as additional forfeiture penalties. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for violating the terms and conditions of its license and the Commission's rules requiring operation within the parameters set forth in the license, and requiring express permission prior to a permittee's operation or
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00622.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00622.txt
      • EchoStar was required to carry 13 channels of noncommercial programming of an educational or informational nature on December 15, 1999. It was carrying only four such channels on that date. EchoStar's conduct is an apparent violation of Section 335 of the Act and Section 100.5 of our rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00635.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00635.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00635.txt
      • NALs that were issued and mailed to them prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, CSBDA and Westall cannot now claim that the NALs fail because they were not issued within the timeframe established by 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(B). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Colorado Small Business Development Association, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $10,000, and Westall Communications, d/b/a M.T.W. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $12,000, for violating the provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules requiring that radio transmitters be operated in accordance with a proper authorization granted
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00636.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00636.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00636.txt
      • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars (20,000). Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00637.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00637.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00637.txt
      • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Mar-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,2 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,3 Mar-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, 17.50 and 17.56(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00638.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00638.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. Willis Broadcasting has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Willis Broadcasting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 73.1213(b) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00639.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00639.txt
      • Telecommunications Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000). Simon Property has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Simon Property IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, former Section 90.113 of the Commission's Rules and Section 1.903 of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00696.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00696.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00696.txt
      • addition, Sunjet asserted that the proposed $7,000 forfeiture is excessive in comparison with its gross revenues of less than $80,000. However, Sunjet did not provide any tax returns or financial statements to support this claim. III. DISCUSSION 11. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Sunjet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00709.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00709.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00709.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. Willis Broadcasting Corporation has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, Willis Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty (30) days
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00765.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00765.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00765.txt
      • amplifiers; and that Two Way collects sales taxes and charges $38.50 for installation and tuning. In addition, Two Way states, if its response does not close this matter, it is making a ``motion for Discovery.'' III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (Released Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Two Way's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00766.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00766.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00766.txt
      • website, offered tee-shirts for sale, and detailed his work experience under the name ``DJ New York.'' During a telephone conversation with Commission staff, James N. Dispoto stated that his full-time occupation is operating his internet radio station, which, according to him, just breaks even. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00848.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00848.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00848.txt
      • support that claim. The financial statements, which are marked ``unaudited'' and do not contain a certification of their correctness, indicate that KNFL's gross revenues were $56,387 in 1996, $80,888 in 1997 and $119,654 in 1998. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KNFL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00883.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00883.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00883.txt
      • supplement broadcast announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadcast announcements. The dispute between Ms. Barto and AK concerning their different understandings of the rules for the ``$10,000 Music Challenge'' demonstrates why it is important for stations to broadcast all of the material terms of a contest. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00897.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00897.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00897.txt
      • EAS ($8,000) and public file ($9,000) violations. 9. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 405, the petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding is hereby DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 14 FCC Rcd 6106 (Compl. & Inf. Bur. 1999). 47 U.S.C. ( 503 (b). 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80. This violation was previously incorrectly cited as a violation of Section 73.3526(d). The incorrect rule cite has no impact on the case because the facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that the rule that was violated was Section 73.3526(c); however, we are taking this opportunity to correct the cite. This violation will be properly referred to as
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00906.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00906.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00906.txt
      • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcomm further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcomm is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00907.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00907.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00907.txt
      • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcom further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcom is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00908.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00908.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00908.txt
      • that it ``never authorized ACS to relocate the WPIM675 repeater . . . [and] . . . was not aware of any such relocation'' and that ``ACS never intended to relocate facilities licensed to Arvada.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Arvada's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00940.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00940.txt
      • new person within the Office of the Sheriff as the point of contact for all matters related to the license, and has notified the Commission of this assignment. III. DISCUSSION 5. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case, and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the forfeiture issued against County of Surry IS RESCINDED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00948.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00948.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00948.txt
      • violations, when coupled with its culpability, offset Bay's overall history and market situation. Further, neither Bay's small business status nor its asserted inability to pay warrants reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. The forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Bay Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000). The forfeiture is imposed for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 73.1201, 73.1675, 73.1690 and 74.1251 of the Commission's rules. Among other things, those provisions proscribe operation of unlicensed transmitters; certain modifications to
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00951.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00951.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00951.txt
      • organs in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired between 6:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on February 26, 1999, Station KROR-FM, violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00960.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00960.txt
      • consummated the assignments. Champion's authorizations expired on April 1, 1999. Champion, however, did not file applications for the renewal of those authorizations until June 3, 1999. WTB granted the late-filed renewal applications on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to Champion for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Champion's response to the NAL. In that response, Champion argues that its failure to file timely renewal applications was not willful because it did not know
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00970.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00970.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00970.txt
      • any and all violations occurring during the period from 1993 to 1999 as a ``convenient target.'' Finally, Mr. Holcombe argues that he has been denied a fair hearing of the facts and the right to due process. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Holcombe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00977.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00977.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00977.txt
      • Meyers contends that the reference in the NAL to the interference complaints received by the Houston Office between 1993 and 1999 unfairly suggests that he is responsible for those violations and was intended to prejudice the Commission. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Meyers' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da993034.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da993034.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da993034.txt
      • amount of $11,000 against James Lee Gaskey for willful violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 301. The noted violation involves radio operation without a license. On April 28, 1999, the Commission's Kansas City, Missouri Field Office, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, issued the referenced Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $11,000 to Mr. Gaskey for the noted violation. A response to the NAL was filed on behalf of Mr. Gaskey by his attorney on June 1, 1999. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc003.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc003.txt
      • stand-alone facsimile machines.'' Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12405 (1995) (TCPA Memorandum Opinion and Order). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). TCPA Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408. Id. 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 April ? @ � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc054.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc054.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc056.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc056.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc130.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc130.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc130.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc131a.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc131a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc132a.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc132a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc133.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc133.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc133.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc134.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc134.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc134.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc135.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc135.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc135.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc148a.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc148a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc149a.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc149a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc150a.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc150a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc165.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc165.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc165.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc166.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc166.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc166.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc167.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc167.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc167.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc168.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc168.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc168.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc169.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc169.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc169.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc171.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc171.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc172.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc172.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc175.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc175.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc176.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc176.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc179.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc179.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc002.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc002.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc003.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc003.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc004.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc004.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc005.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc005.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc006.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc006.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc008.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc008.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00110.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00110.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00110.txt
      • 23, 2000 Released: March 29, 2000 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we dismiss in part and deny in part the March 31, 1999 application for review filed by Mark H. Fulling of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, the former Compliance and Information Bureau found Mr. Fulling liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for operation of an unlicensed FM broadcast station, in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the application in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00196.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00196.txt
      • we believe a total forfeiture of $40,000 is appropriate and consistent with the Central Illinois and Puget Sound cases. We allocate the forfeitures as follows: $22,000 to Roadrunner, $10,000 to DOE, and $4,000 each to City Courier and Eastside/Westside. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Dynamex Operations East, Inc., City Courier, Inc., and Eastside/Westside, Inc. ARE LIABLE FOR MONETARY FORFEITURES in the amounts of $22,000, $10,000, $4,000, and $4,000, respectively, for their willful and repeated violations of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 310(d), and former Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0021.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0021.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0021.txt
      • impose a forfeiture of $35,000 on WQAM License Limited Partnership (``licensee''), licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1464, which prohibits the broadcast of indecent material. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 312(a)(6) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 312(a)(6) and 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(f)(4). 2. By Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL''), FCC 99-187, released July 22, 1999, we determined that certain material apparently broadcast over WQAM on five days in May 1998 was indecent. Inasmuch as the material was apparently aired between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., we concluded that the broadcasts occurred
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00219.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00219.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00219.txt
      • the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send eight unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that Tri-Star is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $47,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00230.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00230.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00230.txt
      • those guidelines will not change the definition of indecency or the Commission's enforcement procedures, both of which have been affirmed by the courts. Moreover, as we have previously stated, ``[w]hile we still intend to issue such guidance, we continue to believe that our existing rulemaking orders and case law provide sufficient guidance.'' Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Reconsideration Order), 15 FCC Rcd 303, 306 (1999). Thus, we find no merit to Citicasters' argument that it is unable to substantively respond to the NAL until after issuance of the guidelines and we see no reason to await issuance of the guidelines before imposing the forfeiture order in this case. In
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00239.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00239.txt
      • mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $2,400,000 forfeiture penalty. Finally, we note that evidence of further violations may lead to institution of a proceeding to revoke BDP's authorization to be a long distance carrier under section 214. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Business Discount Plan, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000) for violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December 1997 to December 1998
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00261.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00261.txt
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Intellicall continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Intellicall's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Intellicall Operator Services is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred ninety eight thousand dollars ($198,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00262.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00262.txt
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Matrix continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Matrix's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Matrix Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00263.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00263.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00263.txt
      • and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 34 unsolicited advertisements identified above. We have further determined that Carolina Liquidators is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $230,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Carolina Liquidators, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $230,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00268.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00268.txt
      • for assessing an appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations that were subject to a forfeiture from July 23, 1998 forward. Accordingly, ENSERCH's argument that the NAL violated the statute of limitations is rejected. ENSERCH also argues that the forfeiture exceeds the $82,500 maximum forfeiture for any single action or failure to act. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5)(iii). We reject that argument because each station that ENSERCH transferred without Commission approval constitutes a separate violation of the Act and the Commission's rules. See Courtesy Communications, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 4198, 4200 (1999). The $82,500 statutory maximum represents the maximum forfeiture that can be issued ``for any single act or failure to act described in paragraph (1) of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00275.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00275.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00275.txt
      • Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 20 unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that US Notary is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $90,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that US Notary, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $90,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00276.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00276.txt
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If ATNC continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke ATNC's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, America's Tele-Network Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred fifty-four thousand dollars ($154,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00278.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00278.txt
      • of Peace for willful and repeated violations of the main studio rule, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1125. 2. After considering all of the facts and circumstances, we believe the licensee made significant good faith efforts to comply with the main studio rules. We conclude that no sanction should be imposed. See generally The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17101, 17116 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules and accompanying note, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4) (downward adjustment for good faith). 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority granted by section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.txt
      • 1217, 1221-24 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Garden State Broad. Ltd. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386, 393-94 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The figure contained in Section 503(b)(2)(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(c), is $75,000. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-358), the maximum has been adjusted for inflation up to $82,500. See Section 1.80(b)(5)(iii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5)(iii). Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-314 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 00- ' 0 � � 0 b � � � � � � ? @ A T U f g �U �U �U ? @ A T U f g �U �U �U U g { {
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00347.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00347.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: September 14, 2000 Released: September 19, 2000 By the Commission: This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties defined in that section to account for inflation since the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00377.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00377.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00377.txt
      • within 30 days of issuance of an NAL, Tri-Star failed to respond to an NAL or pay the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 4. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00378.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00378.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00378.txt
      • evidence, which persuades us not to issue any forfeiture for those alleged violations. Thus, we reduce the proposed $1,000,000 forfeiture penalty to $680,000. We note that evidence of further slamming violations could result in additional enforcement proceedings against Vista. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1100, 64.1150. Payment shall be made
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00390.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00390.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00390.txt
      • not exceed the $110,000 statutory limit for a single violation forfeiture. The nature of calculations is irrelevant to issues of statutory compliance. We continue to believe a $99,000 forfeiture is appropriate for that violation based on all the facts and circumstances at issue. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Intellicall Operator Services IS LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ninety nine thousand dollars ($99,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 254 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 254, and Section 54.706 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00393.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00393.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00393.txt
      • 30 days of issuance of an NAL, Carolina Liquidators failed to respond to the NAL or pay the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Carolina Liquidators, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $230,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 4. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00413.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00413.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00413.txt
      • 28, 2000 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we deny the April 24, 2000, application for review filed by Colorado Small Business Development Association, Inc. (``CSBDA'') and Westall Communications, d/b/a/ M.T.W. (``Westall'') of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, the Enforcement Bureau found CSBDA liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 and Westall liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for unauthorized construction and operation of business radio transmitters in the greater Denver, Colorado area, in willful violation of Section 301 of the
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00419.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00419.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00419.txt
      • well as the reasons set forth in the Bureau's February 25, 2000, MO&O. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Buchanan Broadcasting Company, Inc.'s application for review of the MO&O released February 25, 2000, IS DENIED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f) of the Rules, Buchanan Broadcasting Company, Inc., shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, pay the amount of $9,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and the terms of the WJNT station authorization. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00420.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00420.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00420.txt
      • By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part the May 19, 2000 application for review filed by WGUL-FM, Inc., licensee of Station WINV(AM), of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the former Compliance and Information Bureau ("CIB") found WGUL-FM, Inc. liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 for willful and continuous violation of rule sections 11.52(d) (EAS code and attention signal monitoring requirements), 11.61(a) (tests of EAS procedures), and 73.3526(c) (availability of public inspection file for public inspection). For the reasons
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00422.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00422.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00422.txt
      • agree that the proposed forfeiture amount, $1,120,000, is somewhat excessive in light of these gross revenues and LLD's financial situation. Accordingly, and in light of the seriousness of the violation, we reduce the forfeiture amount from $1,120,000 to $750,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that LLD Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1100, 64.1150. For collection, the Commission
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00423.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00423.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00423.txt
      • after finding that the carrier had made a few payments before notification of potential enforcement action. By contrast, ATNC made no payments prior to the Enforcement Bureau's letter, and still has never committed to pay off its arrearage within a specified timeframe. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, America's Tele-Network Corp. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred fifty-four thousand dollars ($154,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating section 254 of the Act, and section 54.706 of the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.txt
      • ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.� 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Business Discount Plan, Inc. IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.� 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4), that Business Discount Plan, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) for violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December 1997 to December 1998 governing
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00425.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00425.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00425.txt
      • the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 152 unsolicited advertisements identified above. We have further determined that 21st Century Fax is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $1,107,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Ltd. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00446.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00446.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00446.txt
      • liable for forfeitures in the amount of $80,000 for each of the two conversions based on an apparently forged letter of agency, and $40,000 for each of the remaining 12 violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $640,000. 35. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that AT&T Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $640,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0082.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0082.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0082.txt
      • pending; Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 720-27 (1995). Rev. Valentin has not filed for (let alone received) a Commission license. He intentionally broke the law. Therefore, we deny Rev. Valentin's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's NOF. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 1.80 and 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80 and 1.115(g), Rev. Valentin's Application for Review IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rev. Valentin and counsel. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center, (202)
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc99391.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc99391.txt
      • or other device to send 19 unsolicited advertisements to the eight consumers identified above. We have further determined that Get-Aways is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $4,500 for each such violation resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $85,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $85,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-04-437A2.html
      • file its Registration Statement; $12,000 (below the maximum allowed by the OSC but not inconsistent with precedent, see, e.g., Broadstreet Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 7938 (Enf. Bur. 2002)) for the unauthorized discontinuation of service in Vermont; $40,000 (below the maximum allowed by the OSC but not inconsistent with precedent (see, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.80, note to section (b)(4), Section 1) for each of nine unauthorized changes of long distance telephone service for a total of $360,000; $10,000 (the maximum allowed by MO&O, FCC 03M-33) for BOI's willful failure to timely make its TRS contribution; and $10,000 (less than what MO&O, FCC 03M-33 allowed but consistent with 47 C.F.R. 1.80, note to section (b)(4), Section
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-91A1.html
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as "any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services." 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-159A1.html
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as "any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services." 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-1971A1.html
      • Issued by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau -FCC- 47 C.F.R. S:S: 54.401(a)(1) and 54.405. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Lifeline and Link Up, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 26 FCC Rcd 9022 at para. 9 (2011). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 180(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). See 47 U.S.C. S: 214. PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-1992A1.html
      • Competition and Broadband Reporting (2011) (regarding filings due March 1, 2012), available at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf (FCC Form 477 Instructions). We attach a list of Frequently Asked Questions to provide guidance for the most common filing concerns. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.7001, 43.11; FCC Form 477 Instructions at 5, 14-16, 19. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 180(b); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-249A1.html
      • to Use "Cell Jammers" and Other Equipment that Blocks, Jams, or Interferes with Authorized Radio Communications in the U.S., FCC Enforcement Advisory, DA 11-250 (2011). See 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(c)-(d). See 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(c); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.807(d). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE Page 1 of 2 FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.doc
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-12-170A1.html
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as "any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services." 47
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/da002383.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/da002383.html
      • 403. In addition, section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess monetary forfeitures against common carriers of up to one hundred thousand dollars for each violation, or day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of one million dollars for a single act or failure to act. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5) (inflation adjustments to the maximum forfeiture amount). See 47 U.S.C. � 255; 47 C.F.R. �� 6.1 et seq. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov $ $ �����PNG > �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� ��
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/OTH.html
      • marked with an asterisk (*) involved an indecency complaint received on or after November 8, 1999. 04-04-2008 [20]Complaints Against Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox Television Network Program "Married By America" on April 7, 2003 (ORDER) 01-31-2008 [21]Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program "NYPD Blue (ERRATUM) 06-01-2007 [22]Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules: Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (ORDER) 11-06-2006 [23]Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005 (ORDER) 10-17-2006 [24]VIACOM Inc., Infinity Radio Inc. (ORDER ON RECON) 10-17-2006 [25]Emmis Communications Corporation, WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois (ORDER ON RECON.) 05-31-2006 [26]Complaints
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Pleadings/Bluenose_Broadcasting.pdf
      • COUNSEL (202)429-4900 TELECOPIER: (202)429-4912 e-mail: general@g2w2.com website:www.g2w2.com December3,2004 BYFIRSTCLASSMAIL,POSTAGEPREPAIDANDBYHAND WilliamH.Davenport,Chief InvestigationsandHearingsDivision EnforcementBureau FederalCommunicationsCommission 44512thStreet,S.W. Room4-C330 Washington,D.C.20554 Re: BluenoseBroadcastingofSavannah,LLC WTGS(TV),Hardeeville,SC FileNo.EB-03-IH-0162 FRN6597041 FacilityIDNo.27245 NAUAcctNo.20043208307 DearMr.Davenport: BluenoseBroadcastingofSavannah,LLC,("Bluenose"),licenseeofWTGS(TV), Hardeeville,SouthCarolina,byitsattorneys,herebyrespondstotheNoticeof ApparentLiabilityforForfeiture("NAL")issuedbytheCommissiononOctober12, 2004tolicenseesofFoxTelevisionNetworkstations.1Forthereasonssetforthbelow, aswellasthereasonsstatedintheseparatelyfiledJointResponsetowhichBluenoseis 11ntheMatterofComplaintsAgainstVariousLicenseesRegardingTheirBroadcastoftheFoxTelevisionNetwork Program"MarriedbyAmerica"onApril7,2003,NoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture,FCC04-242, NAL/AcctNo.200532080003,EB-03-IH-0162(reI.Oct.12,2004).OnNovember3,2004,byemail,you grantedBluenose'srequestforanextensionoftime,uptoDecember3,2004,bywhichtorespondtothis NAL. Mr.WilliamH.Davenport December3,2004 Page2 aparty,2Bluenoserespectfullyrequestscancellationorreductionofthe$7,000forfeiture proposedintheNAL. WTGS(TV)isanaffiliateoftheFoxTelevisionNetwork.IntheNAL,the Commissionproposeda$7,000forfeitureforeachFoxaffiliate,includingWTGS(TV), thatairedanepisodeoftheFoxprogram,"MarriedbyAmerica,"basedonitsfinding thattheepisodeincludedprogrammaterialthatwasinconsistentwiththe Commission'sindecencystandards. Inadditiontothegroundsforcancellationorreductionthatarearticulatedinthe JointResponse,Bluenoserequestscancellationorreductionofthe$7,000forfeiture proposedintheNALbaseduponthedownwardadjustmentcriteriaspecifiedinthe COmn:lission'sguidelinesforassessingSection503forfeitures.3Theseguidelinespermit aproposedforfeituretobeadjusteddownwardbasedon,amongotherthings,ahistory ofoverallcompliance.4 BluenoseisingoodstandingwiththeCommissionandhasahistoryof complyingwiththeCommission'srules.IntheentiretimethatBluenosehasbeenan FCClicensee,ithasnotbeenthesubjectofanyforfeiture,penalty,oradmonishmentby, theCommissionforruleviolations.sInshort,Bluenosehasthekindofhistoryof overallcompliancethatwarrantsadownwardadjustmentundertheforfeiturecriteria. 2IntheMatterofComplaintsAgainstVariousLicenseesRegardingTheirBroadcastoftheFoxTelevisionNetwork Program"MarriedbyAmerica"onApril7,2003,OppositiontoNoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture, submittedbyFoxBroadcastingCompanyandTheLicenseesoftheTelevisionBroadcastStations AffiliatedwiththeFoxTelevisionNetwork,IdentifiedInAttachmentAThereto,NAL/Acct.No. 200532080003,EB-03-IH-0162(filedDec.3,2004)("JointResponse"). 3See47C.F.R.�1.80,NotetoParagraph(b)(4):GuidelinesforAssessingForfeitures,SectionII, AdjustmentCriteriaforSection503Forfeitures. 4ld.;seealso,IntheMatterofEntercomSeattleLicense,LLC;LicenseeofStationKNDD(FM),Seattle, Washington,MemorandumOpinionandOrder,19FCCRed.9069(2004)(upholdingaforfeitureorderto whichtheEnforcementBureauhadmadeadownwardadjustmentduetothelicensee'soverallhistoryof compliance). 5Bluenose,whichwasformerlyknownasBrissetteBroadcastingofSavannah,LLC,becamethelicensee ofWTGS(TV)inJanuary1999. GOLDBERG,GODLES,WIENER &WRIGHT .-- -.- , Mr.WilliamH.Davenport December3,2004 Page3 Accordingly,andforthereasonsstatedhereinandintheJointResponse,the Commissionshouldrescindorreducethe$7,000forfeitureproposedintheNAL. Res~pectfullsJbmitted-' ., --- \. ~ ),r~~ ie ~I~~rl j ,~Go] ~, JoseJ:1hA.Godl~/ kutaA.Stefani AttorneysforBluenoseBroadcasting ofSavannah,LLC GOLDBERG. GODLES.WIENER &WRIGHT
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Pleadings/Falls_and_Compass.pdf
      • sendingaLetterofInquiry("LaI")tothebroadcaststation."gInthisparticularproceeding,the Commissionsentaletterofinquirytotheonlyidentifiedlicensee,TVTLicense,Inc.("TVT"), thelicenseeofFOXaffiliateWTVT(TV)inTampa,Florida.TheCommissionnotesthatTVT respondedtotheLOI,butonlyonbehalfofFOXownedandoperatedstations.9Atnotimedid theCommissiondistributeaLOItoFalls,Compassoranyotheraffiliatenotownedoroperated byFax. IftheCommissioninsistsonissuingaNALagainstaffiliateslikeFallsandCompass,it mustfirstprovideacopyofthecomplainttothelicensee,andthenprovidethepartyan opportunitytorespond.TheCommissionfailedtomeeteitherrequirement.Instead,theNAL unfairlyattachesapenaltyagainstFallsandCompassfortheresponsesmadebyanotherparty andforcomplaintsmadebyindividualsnowhereneartheviewingareasofKXTForKFXP. ThisdecisionsetsafrighteningprecedentbecauseitallowstheCommissiontoselectthepartyto respondandthenapplythatparty'sresponsetowardsallotherlicensees.Thisisablatantmisuse oftheCommission'sauthorityagainstFallsandCompass. TheCommission'sdecisiontoincorporaterulingsforeventsthatoccurredaftertheevent inquestionisaviolationoftheFirstAmendment.IndecidingtofineallFOXnetworkaffiliates, theCommissionnotesthedifferencesbetweentheincidentinMarriedbyAmericaandJanet Jackson's"wardrobemalfunction"duringthe2004SuperBowlonCBS.10Yet,theCommission shouldnothaveevenconsideredtheJanetJacksondecisionforthisNAL.TheMarriedby g http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcastinglopi.html. 9 SeeNALatFootnote6. 10 SeeId.at'j[16. 4 I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AmericaepisodeinquestionwasbroadcastonApril7,2003.TheCommissionsentitsLOIto TVTonJuly10,2003,nearlysevenmonthspriortotheincidentinvolvingJanetJacksonand nearlyayearandhalfbeforetheCommission'sdecisiononthatparticularincident.Applying thedecisionintheJanetJacksonproceedingagainstlicenseesintheMarriedbyAmerica proceedingamountstoanunconstitutionalexpostfactoactbytheCommission.Theforfeiture inflictsgreaterpunishmentagainstFallsandCompassbecausepunishingallaffiliateswasnot consideredbytheCommissionatthetimeofitsinquiry2003.Theconceptofpunishingall affiliatesonlybecameanissueaftertheCommissionevaluatedtheeventsinvolvingJanet Jackson. FallsandCompassShouldNotFaceSanctionsBecauseNeitherPartyHasaHistoryof ImproperConduct InadditiontothefactthatnocomplaintswereactuallyfiledagainstFallsorCompass,the Commissionshouldalsorescindtheproposedforfeiturebecauseneitherpartyhasahistoryof improperconduct.Section1.80(b)(4)oftheCommission'srulesprovidesthattheCommission shalltakeintoaccountfactorsincluding"culpability"and"anyhistoryofprioroffenses."Falls andCompasshaveeachoperatedwithintheboundariesoftheCommission'srulesand regulationsandhaveneverbeensubjecttosanctions.Furthermore,FallsandCompasscannotbe foundculpablebecauseneitherpartyhadanopportunitytopreviewtheprogrambefore broadcast. UnderthenetworkaffiliationagreementwithFoxBroadcastingCompany("FOX"),Falls andCompassmustprovideFOXseventy-two(72)hoursnoticeifitintendstopreemptnetwork programming.Eveniftheaffiliatedeterminesthattheprogrammingisunsuitableforbroadcast, FallsandCompassstillmustgiveFOX72hoursnoticebeforepreemptingtheprogram. "MarriedbyAmerica"isjustoneofagrowingnumberofreality-basedtelevisionshows.Many 5 oftheserealitytelevisionprogramsincludeviewerparticipation.Thisparticularprogram allowedviewerstodecidewhichcontestantsdeservedthe$500,000grandprize.Inorderto protectthecontest'sintegrity,theseprogramsareeitherliveproductionsorarerecordedmere hoursbeforebroadcast.EvenifFallsorCompassfoundtheprogrammingobjectionable,the productionschedulewouldnothaveallowedeithercompanytoexerciseits72-hourpreemption rights.TheCommission'sanalysisthattheprogram"wasatapedepisodeinatapedseries" paintsanoverlybroadpictureofnetworkprogramming.IIThefactthattheprogramwas"taped" doesnotmeanitisavailabletopreview.Theshortproductionschedulefor"Marriedby America"madeitimpossibleforFallsandCompasstoexercisethepreemptionrightsafforded inthenetworkaffiliationagreements. TheCommission'srecognitionofonebroadcasterpreemptingthe"MarriedbyAmerica" programisirrelevantforthisproceeding.12CapitolBroadcastingCompany("Capitol"),licensee ofWRAZ-TVinRaleigh,NCpreemptedtheprogram"[a]fterviewingthesecondepisode,which airedonMarch5th.,,13LikeFallsandCompass,Capitol"wasneveraffordedtheopportunityto reviewtheseorfutureepisodes.,,14Infact,Capitol'sdecisiontoremovetheprogramoccurred onemonthpriortotheepisodeinquestionandwasnotbasedonconcernsofindecencyorthe contentoftheepisode,butbecause"theshowwasclearlydemeaningtotheinstitutionof 11 NALat ~16. 12 SeeId. 13 CapitolBroadcastingPressRelease,WRAZ-TV/FOX50ToPreemptFutureBroadcastsof MarriedByAmerica,http://www.cbc- raleigh.comlinside_cbc/2003%20news/030903fx.htm(March9,2003). 14 Id. 6 marriage.,,15Capitol'sactionswerenotbasedonanyofthecontentinthisparticularepisodeand shouldnotbeusedagainstbroadcasterslikeFallsandCompass. BothFallsandCompasstakegreatprideinprovidingFOXprogrammingtoresidentsof EasternIdaho.NeitherKXTFnorKFXPhasbeenthesubjectofaCommissionsanctionduring eachstation'sbroadcasthistory.Notonecomment,positiveornegative,wasreceivedbyFalls orCompassforanyepisodeofthe"MarriedbyAmerica"program.Proposingtofinestations thathavenopriorhistoryofmalfeasanceandwithoutanyevidenceofpublicoutragefromeither TwinFallsorPocatelloplacesagreatchillonfreespeech. Conclusion TheNALissuedbytheCommissionisrifewitherrorsandimproperconclusions.The Commissionhasadmittedthatthe159complaintsreceivedwereactually90complaintsreceived fromahandfulofindividuals.Thecomplaintsfailedtoadheretothestandardssetbythe Commissionforfilingcomplaints.AnumberofcomplaintsreceivedbytheCommissionwere fromcommunitieswithnopossibleaccesstoover-the-airFOXprogramming.Mostimportantly, notonecomplaintreceivedbytheCommissionwasfromtheviewingareaservedbyFallsand Compass.TheCommissionshouldimmediatelyrescindtheproposedforfeitureamountof $7,000againstFallsandCompass. 15 Id. 7
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Pleadings/Lingard_Broadcasting.pdf
      • I IIIIIIIIIII I I I I\\ Beforethe FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington,D.C.20554 )) ComplaintsAgainstVariousLicenseesRegarding) TheirBroadcastOfTheFoxTelevisionNetwork) Program"MarriedByAmerica"OnApril7,2003) IntheMatterof NAL/Acct.No.200432080349 FileNo.EB-03-IH-0162 To:TheCommission OPPOSITIONTONOTICEOFAPPARENTLIABILITYFORFORFEITURE 1.LingardBroadcastingCorporation(hereinafter"LBC")isthelicenseeof TelevisionStationWLOV-TV,WestPoint,Mississippi.OnOctober12,2004,the CommissionreleasedaNoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture("NAL")citing169 FoxTelevisionNetworkstations-includingWLOV-TV-forallegedlybroadcasting IIII\III\III\IIIIIIIIIindecentmaterial"duringanepisodeoftheprogramMarriedByAmerica,airedbyFox TelevisionNetworkonApril7,2003."BasedupontheCommission's"reviewofthe facts,"theCommissionissuedtheNALandimposeduponLBCamonetaryforfeiturein theamountof$7,000.00. 2.Thereisbeingfiledcontemporaneouslyherewith,thejoint"OppositionTo NoticeOfApparentLiabilityForForfeiture"("JointOpposition")onbehalfofnumerous partiestothisproceeding.Amongothers,LBCisapartytosaid"JointOpposition,"fully endorsesit,andincorporatesithereinbyreference,initsentirety.Nonetheless,pursuant IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I to�1.80oftheCommission'sRulesandparagraph19oftheNAL,LBCwishestosubmit certainadditionalmaterialasfollows.l 3.LBCbelievesthatitisimportantthattheCommissionbemadeawareof certainfactswhichithasoverlooked.First,noneofthecomplaintsreceivedbythe CommissioninconnectionwiththenetworkbroadcastoftheApril7,2003episodeof MarriedByAmericawasdirectedagainstWLOV-TV.Second,atnotimehasLBC receivedanywritten,verbal,e-mailorotherformofcomplaintconcerningtheprogram knownasMarriedByAmerica.Inaddition,priortotheissuanceoftheNAL,LBChas operatedWLOV -TVsinceitsacquisitiononAugust12,1994,withoutoncebeingcited bytheCommissionforanyreason,letalonebroadcastingindecentprogramming. 4.TheCommissionrecognizesinitsNALthat"[t]heFirstAmendmenttothe UnitedStatesConstitutionandsection326oftheActprohibittheCommissionfrom censoringprogrammaterialandfrominterferingwithbroadcasters'freedomof expression.,,2NotwithstandingtheCommission'sapparent,limitedauthoritytoregulate certainprogramming/theCommission'sissuanceoftheNALagainstWLOV-TV,which wasnevereventhesubjectofacomplaint,istantamounttotheverygovernment censorshipspecificallyprohibitedunder�Section326oftheCommunicationsAct.4Not onlydoes�326prohibitcensorship,italsomakesclearthat"noregulationorcondition shallbepromulgatedorfixedbytheCommissionwhichshallinterferewiththerightof freespeechbymeansofradiocommunication."(Emphasisadded).5TheCommission's actionsinthiscaserelativetoitsviewsofindecencyasdescribedintheaforementioned 1Pursuanttoe-mailcorrespondenceofNovember8,2004,thetimeforLBCtorespondtotheNALdirected againstitwasextendedtoandincludingDecember3,2004. 2SeeNoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture,FCC04-242,atpara.4(reI.October12,2004). 3Id,atpara.6. 4See47V.S.C.�326whichstatinginpertinentpart:Censorship.Nothinginthischaptershallbe understoodorconstruedtogivetheCommissionthepowerofcensorshipovertheradiocommunicationsor signalstransmittedbyanyradiostation...." 5ld. 2 I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ "JointOpposition,"amounttonothingshortoffrighteninglychillingbehavior,indirect contraventionof�326oftheAct.Clearly,thefactsinthiscase-viewedinthelightof applicablecaselaw-resultinacombinationofa"chillingeffect,"priorrestraintand effectively,censorship.Itappearsthatwehavereachedthestagewhereatelevision stationlicenseecanbefinedbytheCommissionmerelyforwhatsomesmallnumberof viewers-andCommissionstaff-imaginetheysaw. 5.TheCommission'sactionsinthisandotherrecentlyreleased"indecency" casesarevagueandambiguousastowhatdoes,ordoesnot,constituteindecency.The Commission'sconclusionsinthiscase-basedinlargepartupontheimagined perceptionsofaminusculenumberofviewers-isclearlyarbitrary,capricious,andan abuseofdiscretionundertheAdministrativeProcedureAct.8
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Pleadings/Viacom.pdf
      • a "final determination that [the] specific" speech presents a violation) (citing Southeastern Promos., Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 561 (1975); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 66 (1953)). 63 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd. 4043, � 21 (2002) (citing Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd. 303, � 4 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Recon.")). 40 alleged "recent indecent broadcasts by Viacom-owned radio stations" when in fact the cases it relies upon do not involve any determination that the broadcasts in question were actionably indecent, and in most of the cases there has been only a finding
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/otherinfo/fcc97218.html
      • tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) The Commission's Forfeiture ) CI Docket No. 95-6 Policy Statement and ) Amendment of Section 1.80 ) of the Rules to Incorporate ) the Forfeiture Guidelines ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: June 19, 1997 Released: July 28, 1997 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Forfeiture versus the traditional 5 case-by-case approach B. Proposal Modifications 9 (i) Use of the same base forfeiture amount for
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4510A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4510A1.pdf
      • not fully excuse the violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Station operated after its license expired and without authorization for more than four months. The Licensee was obligated to fully comply with the terms of its Station's license and maintain in effect the Station's authorization. It did not do so. Sanction. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-108A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-108A1.pdf
      • filed a Request for Cancellation or Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture (``Request'') on September 30, 2010. In its Request, Southern states that cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-90A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-90A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-90A1.txt
      • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/published_audio_documents.html
      • was denied, $9,000 forfeiture order was affirmned. October 20, 2008 Luis A Meija and MSG Radio, Inc., for assigmentnt of license for WIAC (FM), San Juan, PR, Forfeiture Order, DA 08-2315, released October 20, 2008. [ [1032]PDF | [1033]Word ]. $3,000 forfeiture order for not including copies of relevant agreements for the sale of the station, in violation of Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules. October 16, 2008 Community Bible Chuech, for Special Temporary Authority and License for FM translator W230BH, Montauk, NY, Letter, DA 08-2308, released October 16, 2008. [ [1034]PDF | [1035]Word ]. License application granted. October 16, 2008 Calvary Chapel of Brandon, Inc. (WQRD-LP, Gibsonton, FL) and Iglesia Cristiana La Nueva Jerusalem, Inc. (WVVD-LP, East Tampa, FL) ,
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html
      • http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 16. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 17. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html#skippagenav 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/Welcome.html 19. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/foiahandbook.pdf 20. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/quickfactsheet.pdf 21. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/cfr.html 22. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 23. http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gils/index.html 24. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_guide07/text_foia.pdf 25. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/reading-room-cert.pdf 26. http://www.fcc.gov/portalsdir.html 27. http://www.fcc.gov/ 28. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 29. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 30. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 31. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/circ_items.cgi 32. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/ 33. http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/ 34. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-77A1.pdf 35. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.18.pdf 36. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.61.pdf 37. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4050.pdf 38. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4140.pdf 39. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4266.pdf 40. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4267.pdf 41. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4280.pdf 42. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf 43. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.pdf 44. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97218.pdf 45. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.80.pdf 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00072.doc 47. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-53A1.pdf 48. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/fcc99124.txt 49. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-63A1.pdf 50. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf 51. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-401A1.pdf 52. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_eeo_policy_statement.html 53. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_anti_harassment_statement.html 54. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/2000/fcc00207.doc 55. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1999/fcc99354.txt 56. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/80-621.pdf 57. http://www.fcc.gov/statelocal/recommendation1.html 58. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1980.pdf 59. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1986.pdf 60. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1990.pdf 61. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1991.pdf 62. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1992.pdf 63. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1992.pdf 64. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-rev-1992.pdf 65. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1974.pdf 66. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1984.pdf 67. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1991.pdf 68. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-rev-1991.pdf 69. http://www.fcc.gov/osec/ 70. http://www.fcc.gov/ocbo/ 71. https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/coresWeb/publicHome.do 72. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284563A1.pdf 73. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-commission-meeting-room-usage.pdf 74. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-federal-advisory-committee.pdf 75. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-foia-management.pdf
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/97-290.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/97-290.pdf
      • for purposes of implementing Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires us to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers. Additionally, in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 96-16, In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rules and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/programdiversity090002.pdf
      • divided by the total number of hours or prime time programming. This determines the average number of program types during prime time. Perfect imitation would equal one while perfect diversity would equal three (p. 404). 22 Horizontal Diversity Index 2.722.78 2.822.82 2.68 2.84 2.602.58 2.50 2.412.452.36 2.27 2.452.45 2.23 2.14 2.50 2.32 2.43 2.68 2.52 2.88 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year Diversity Indes Diversity Index This index tells a slightly different story than the other two. In the early time period, the fluctuations in horizontal diversity reflect the fluctuations in diversity
    • http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
      • Yearbook (1999). Newspaper characteristics not available in all markets. 30 Table 2: Overall Evidence of Preference Externalities Circulation per Capita Circulation per Household 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) MSA Pop (Mil.) 0.005 0.003 0.009 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.015 0.027 0.014 (2.74)** (1.99)* (3.09)** (1.99)* (1.80) (0.88) (2.88)** (3.11)** (2.57)* MSA Median Inc. (000) -0.001 0.002 -0.001 (0.96) (1.68) (0.46) MSA Fr. College Degree 0.230 0.098 0.144 (3.43)** (1.21) (2.00)* MSA Fr. Under Age 30 -0.884 -0.303 -0.319 (7.47)** (2.77)** (1.11) MSA Fr. Over Age 65 4.1603 2.2409 2.988 (10.61)** (5.12)** (2.59)* Constant 0.199 0.206 0.238 0.192 0.220 0.232 0.532 0.632 0.553 (41.41)** (6.45)** (34.08)** (4.01)**
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/fc980041.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/fc980041.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/fc980041.wp
      • find that the appropriate forfeiture amount for each day of this continuing violation was $5,000, for a total of $1,000,000. 42. In determining the amount of the forfeiture, we have considered the relevant statutory factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, US WEST may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including the licensee's overall compliance history, whether the licensee voluntarily disclosed the violation to the Commission, and
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/fc980042.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/fc980042.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/fc980042.wp
      • find that the appropriate forfeiture amount for each day of this continuing violation was $5,000, for a total of $1,000,000. 41. In determining the amount of the forfeiture, we have considered the relevant statutory factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Western may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including the licensee's overall compliance history, whether the licensee voluntarily disclosed the violation to the Commission, and the
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/da020260paxson1-reply.pdf
      • New Personal Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, 9 FCC Rcd 4055, 4060, n.53 (1994) (recognizing pending legislation related to Commission conclusion and stating "We recognize that this pending bill is not law and emphasize that our judgment on these issues is based on our own analysis and experience"); The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17105, n.36 (1997) (pending or desired legislation insufficient to alter Commission's mandate to collect fines for violation of operator on duty and lottery broadcast requirements and stating "Unless Congress amends the Communications Act to deregulate the action in question, we will continue to issue forfeitures
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/44/releases/da020200-paxson-reply.pdf
      • New Personal Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, 9 FCC Rcd 4055, 4060, n.53 (1994) (recognizing pending legislation related to Commission conclusion and stating "We recognize that this pending bill is not law and emphasize that our judgment on these issues is based on our own analysis and experience"); The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17105, n.36 (1997) (pending or desired legislation insufficient to alter Commission's mandate to collect fines for violation of operator on duty and lottery broadcast requirements and stating "Unless Congress amends the Communications Act to deregulate the action in question, we will continue to issue forfeitures
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/anticollusion/releases/fcc01270.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/anticollusion/releases/fcc01270.txt
      • or other enforcement actions taken against small entities. Indeed, Section 223 requires agencies to provide for the reduction, and under appropriate circumstances for the waiver, of civil penalties for violations of a statutory or regulatory requirement by a small entity. Under appropriate circumstances, an agency may consider ability to pay in determining penalty assessments on small entities.15 In amending Section 1.80 of its rules in 1997 to incorporate guidelines for assessing forfeitures, the Commission also made clear that its forfeiture policies are consistent with this approach.16 We cannot in good conscience alter the uniform standards of behavior required of all auction participants, even if to do so might assist small businesses. Public confidence in the fairness of our auction process could
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2000/releases/hazlett.pdf
      • 3/96 1.25 News 12 Westchester 11/95 0.32 NewsChannel 8 (Washington, D.C.) 10/91 1.10 NorthWest Cable News (Seattle & Northwest) 12/95 2.10 Orange County (California) NewsChannel 9/90 0.52 45 Table 9 Regional News and Public Affairs Services on Cable TV, continued Network Launch Date Subscribers (millions) Pittsburgh Cable News Channel 1/94 0.64 Cable TV Network of New Jersey (financial news) 7/83 1.80 Washington Television n.a n.a. New York Channel n.a. n.a. California Channel 2/91 5.22 Michigan Government TV 7/96 1.61 Pennsylvania Cable Network 9/79 2.34 Central Florida News 13 10/97 n.a. County Television Network San Diego 7/96 0.76 Ecumenical Television Channel 1983 0.50 International Television Broadcasting (Time Warner) 4/86 0.5 0 MediaOne/CAMA (Atlanta) 12/95 0.5 0 46 Table 9 Regional News and
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/papersAndStudies/fc970353.pdf
      • often inefficient, considering the tight deadlines associated with the auction process. Some government agencies such as the Federal Aviation FCC REPORT TO CONGRESS ON SPECTRUM AUCTIONS PAGE 41 41 See, e.g., Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-50, � 348, 78 109 Stat. 436 (1995). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c). 79 Administration are authorized to implement an acquisition management system that addresses the unique needs of that agency, notwithstanding the provisions of Federal acquisition law such as the FAR. This 78 greater flexibility would benefit the FCC for the auctions program as well. (5) The Commission recommends that the statute of limitations for forfeiture proceedings against non-broadcast licensees be modified
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/element6.doc
      • 500 ohms resistance, and operates on 125 mA. What value of resistance should be connected in series with it to operate from 110 VDC? A.380 ohms B.400 ohms C.200 ohms D.None of the above 6A73 C Given: Input power to a receiver is 75 watts. How much power does the receiver consume in 24 hours of continuous operation? A.1800 watthours B.1.80 kilowatthours C.A & B D.None of the above 6A74 B The total reactance when two capacitances of equal value are connected in series is: A.The product of the two individual reactances in ohms B.The sum of the two individual reactances in ohms C.The difference of the two individual reactances in ohms D.None of the above 6A75 C A capacitor's charge
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/audits/paging/resources/sampleletter.pdf
      • operations as described in 47 C.F.R. � 22.317. As a consequence, your license(s) may be presumed to have cancelled automatically. In addition to the cancellation of your license(s), your failure to timely respond to this audit letter may lead to the imposition of administrative sanctions, such as a monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules.3 Additional Information - For assistance in responding to the audit in ULS, call 717-338-2888 or 888-CALLFCC (888-225-5322) and select option #2. For additional information about this license audit, you can reference the Public Notice announcing the audit.4 You can also access the web page at http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/audits/ for answers to your questions and access to audit statistics
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/audits/paging/resources/samplepagingfollowup.pdf
      • imposition of administrative sanctions, __________________________ 47 C.F.R. � 22.317. Section 22.317 also applies to paging operations on exclusive channels in the 929- 930 MHz band. See 47 C.F.R. � 90.493(b). Page 2 FCC 979C ____________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _____________ _________________________________________ __________ _____________________ __________ _____ 4 4 such as a monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. Additional Information - For assistance in responding to the audit in ULS, call 877-480-3201. For additional information about this license audit, you can refer to the previous Public Notices. You can also access the web page for the paging license audit at http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/audits/paging for answers to your questions and access to audit statistics and the audit
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/index.htm?job=audits_about
      • letter is mandatory. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has permanently discontinued operations and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and 47 CFR Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commissions rules. Return to Top Arrow [29]Return to Top Last reviewed/updated on 3/3/2008. [30]FCC Home [31]Search [32]RSS [33]Updates [34]E-Filing [35]Initiatives [36]Consumers [37]Find People [38]Licensing, Technical Support and Website Issues - [39]Forgot Your Password? - [40]Submit eSupport request Phone: 1-877-480-3201 TTY: 1-717-338-2824 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 [41]More FCC Contact Information... Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/index.htm?job=audits_about&id=220
      • letter is mandatory. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has permanently discontinued operations and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and 47 CFR Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commissions rules. Return to Top Arrow [29]Return to Top Last reviewed/updated on 3/3/2008. [30]FCC Home [31]Search [32]RSS [33]Updates [34]E-Filing [35]Initiatives [36]Consumers [37]Find People [38]Licensing, Technical Support and Website Issues - [39]Forgot Your Password? - [40]Submit eSupport request Phone: 1-877-480-3201 TTY: 1-717-338-2824 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 [41]More FCC Contact Information... Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/index.htm?job=audits_about&id=paging
      • letter is mandatory. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has permanently discontinued operations and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and 47 CFR Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commissions rules. Return to Top Arrow [29]Return to Top Last reviewed/updated on 3/3/2008. [30]FCC Home [31]Search [32]RSS [33]Updates [34]E-Filing [35]Initiatives [36]Consumers [37]Find People [38]Licensing, Technical Support and Website Issues - [39]Forgot Your Password? - [40]Submit eSupport request Phone: 1-877-480-3201 TTY: 1-717-338-2824 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 [41]More FCC Contact Information... Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/licensing/index.htm?job=audits_about&id=plmrs
      • letter is mandatory. Failure to provide a timely response may result in the Commission presuming that the station has permanently discontinued operations and thus the license may be presumed to have automatically cancelled. Failure to provide a timely response may also result in enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act and 47 CFR Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Commissions rules. Return to Top Arrow [29]Return to Top Last reviewed/updated on 3/3/2008. [30]FCC Home [31]Search [32]RSS [33]Updates [34]E-Filing [35]Initiatives [36]Consumers [37]Find People [38]Licensing, Technical Support and Website Issues - [39]Forgot Your Password? - [40]Submit eSupport request Phone: 1-877-480-3201 TTY: 1-717-338-2824 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 [41]More FCC Contact Information... Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
    • http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=70
      • with PWBs*: 108 FCC Held Permits: 12 Eligible Bidders: 67 (of 114 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=70T hu, 15 Mar 2007 14:35:01 GMT Summary Permits: 120 construction permits in the FM broadcast service Qualified Bidders: 114 Rounds Completed: 27 Bidding Days: 7 Results for Round 27 Gross Revenue: $21,513,200.00 - Dollar Change: $380,700.00 - % Change: 1.80 Net Revenue: $18,539,050.00 - Dollar Change: $268,795.00 - % Change: 1.47 New Bids: 44 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 1 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 7 Permits with PWBs*: 108 FCC Held Permits: 12 Eligible Bidders: 65 (of 114 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=70T hu, 15 Mar 2007 15:50:01 GMT Summary Permits: 120 construction permits in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2000/fcc00195.doc
      • 1002 of the SHVIA). 17 U.S.C. �501(f)(2). 47 U.S.C. �338(f)(1). The remedial provisions of the SHVIA are substantially similar to provisions applicable to cable operators set forth in Section 614(d)(1)-(3) of the 1992 Cable Act. 47 U.S.C. �338(f)(2). We note that there is a specific forfeiture provision for cable operator violations of the broadcast signal carriage rules. See 47 C.F.R. �1.80: Table II-Violations Unique to the Service (base amount of individual violation set at $7,500) See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). See 5 U.S.C. �603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. �601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA).
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2000/fcc00273.doc
      • NAL / Acct. No. X12000002 ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY Adopted: July 26, 2000 Released: July 28, 2000 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we initiate enforcement action against MediaOne of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc. (``MediaOne''), pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. For the reasons discussed below, we find that MediaOne has apparently violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Commission's rules, which prohibits cable systems, operating in the 54-216 MHz band, from radiating in excess of 20 micro-volts per meter at a distance of three meters from the cable. Based on a review of the facts and the circumstances
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000656.doc
      • (Onslow County, NC), 13 FCC Rcd 11,996 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998). 47 C.F.R. � 76.923(n)(4) provides that a cable operator seeking to adjust its maximum permitted rate must file FCC Form 1205 60 days before it seeks to adjust its rates to reflect the offering of new types of customer premises equipment. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80, 76.9. (...continued from previous page) (continued...) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-656 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-656 � � � @&
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000978.doc
      • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NAL / Acct. No. X12000001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY Adopted: May 1, 2000 Released: May 2, 2000 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we initiate enforcement action against AT&T Corp. (``AT&T''), pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. For the reasons discussed below, we find that AT&T, and its predecessor Tele-Communications, Inc. (``TCI''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated former Section 76.503(c) of the Commission's rules. Section 76.503(c), in effect at the time of the conduct at issue here, required cable operators that reach 20% or more of homes passed by cable nationwide to certify,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001153.doc
      • the Commission's rules for a cable operator to respond to a potential leased access programmer's request for leased access information. In view of Time Warner's failure to comply with Section 76.970(h)(1), we are considering separately issuing to Time Warner a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.80 and 76.975(f) of the Commission's rules. In view of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for relief filed in the captioned proceeding by Kenney Broadcasting Corporation IS DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson, Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00041.doc
      • In the Matter of: ) ) ) Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY Adopted: February 8, 2000 Released: February 16, 2000 By the Commission: I. Introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we initiate enforcement action against Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision"), pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. For the reasons discussed below, we find that Cablevision has apparently willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 614 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, by its failure to carry commercial television station WXTV on channel 41 on several of its cable systems in the New York television market. These violations have occurred on a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1995/fcc95419.html
      • toll free number shortage, but it results in toll free numbers remaining inactive and unavailable for subscribers in need of working numbers. We note that the Commission has received a number of complaints about hoarding of 800 numbers. See Options from 800 National Product Team, dated June 6, 1995. Footnote 73 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 502 and 503; [183]47 C.F.R. 1.80. Footnote 74 Persons making false statements can be punished by fine or imprisonment under the Communications Act. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 220(e). Title 18 also provides penalties for false statement. See 18 U.S.C. 1001. Footnote 75 See, e.g., Letter from J. C. Reed, Government Employees Insurance Company to Reed Hundt, Chairman of the FCC, dated June 5, 1995; Letter from
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98331.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98331.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98331.wp
      • Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Pub L. No. 104-134, � 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), requires that civil monetary penalties assessed by the federal government be adjusted for inflation based on the formula outlined in the DCIA. Thus, the statutory maxima pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) increased from $100,000 and $1,000,000 to $110,000 and $1,100,000 respectively. Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997). 3 2. As described in more detail below, the consumer complaints that support this NAL paint a disturbing picture of LDDI's apparent disregard for following the requirements of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules and orders. The facts in the complaints appear to establish a repeated pattern of conduct by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99224.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99224.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99224.txt
      • the preferred carriers of the fourteen consumers identified above, on the dates and in the manner described herein. We have further determined that Coleman Enterprises d/b/a Local Long Distance is apparently liable for a total forfeiture amount of $1,120,000. 40. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Coleman Enterprises, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,120,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99225.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99225.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99225.wp
      • Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Pub L. No. 104-134, � 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), requires that civil monetary penalties assessed by the federal government be adjusted for inflation based on the formula outlined in the DCIA. Thus, the statutory maxima pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) increased from $100,000 and $1,000,000 to $110,000 and $1,100,000 respectively. Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997). 11 Pertinent information concerning all 18 complaints and Vista's responses thereto is set forth in the Appendix to this Order. The record also includes supporting statements for each of these complaints. 3 below, was accompanied by Vista's apparently intentional, egregious, and repeated misconduct. In addition, we find that Vista is apparently
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98076.wp
      • that at least 350 complaints against certain of the Fletcher Companies are within the Commission's statute of limitations, including at least 240 slamming complaints against LDSI and at least 110 slamming complaints against PCI. 50 We note that the Commission recently adopted a policy statement and guidelines regarding unauthorized PIC changes. See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, CI Docket No. 95-6, at 18 (rel. July 28, 1997). Although we do not rely on these guidelines, because they were not in place at the time of the complaints filed against the Fletcher Companies', we note that these guidelines recommend an assessment of forfeitures in the amount of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991878.doc
      • of allegedly false statements with the Commission in responding to JMJ's informal complaint. Forfeitures and other Commission-initiated enforcement actions are not, however, available as remedies to complainants in informal or formal complaint proceedings. If the Commission determines that AT&T's actions necessitate the assessment of a forfeiture or other Commission action, the Commission may, on its own motion, pursuant to section 1.80 of our rules, assess a forfeiture against any person found to have willfully or repeatedly violated any provision of the Act or any Commission rule, regulation, or order. . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the authority delegated under
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99299.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99299.txt
      • of the twenty-two violations involving forgeries or falsifications and forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for each of the eight violations that did not involve forgeries or falsifications, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of two million and eighty thousand dollars ($2,080,000). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Qwest Communications International Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of two million and eighty thousand dollars ($2,080,000) for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. IT
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
      • 65. Id. The Commission, for example, has authority under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, to impose forfeiture penalties and, if such a situation was before it properly, would consider imposing penalties on any incumbent LEC that fails to comply with the line sharing rules articulated in this order. Pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act (47 U.S.C 503(b)(2)(B)) and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R 1.80), the amount of the forfeiture would not exceed $110,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation up to a total of $1,100,000. We would be prepared to take action each time an incumbent LEC fails to comply with its section 251(c)(3) unbundling obligations, even if we have already taken action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99391.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99391.txt
      • or other device to send 19 unsolicited advertisements to the eight consumers identified above. We have further determined that Get-Aways is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $4,500 for each such violation resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $85,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $85,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00400.txt
      • of Intent to Revoke Interconnection Authority. Before revoking interconnection authority under the provisions of this section, the Commission, or the Common Carrier Bureau under delegated authority, will issue a written Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority, or a Joint Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Notice of Intent to Revoke Part 68 Interconnection Authority pursuant to ��1.80 and 1.89 of this chapter. (c) Delivery. The Notice will be sent via certified mail to the responsible party for the terminal equipment at issue at the address provided to the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments. (d) Reauthorization. A product that has had its approval revoked may not be authorized for connection to the public switched telephone network for a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.txt
      • provisioning. See PR-4-01 (Provisioning of Special Services - Missed Appointments - Total IOF). Specifically, the competitive LEC missed appointment rates for February through June 2001 were 14.29 percent, 15.79 percent, 9.38 percent, 21.05 percent, and 3.57 percent respectively. Verizon's performance for its own retail special services for the same period was 4.98 percent, 1.24 percent, 1.09 percent, 2.39 percent, and 1.80 percent respectively. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275. In Pennsylvania, the retail analogue for this measure historically has been all retail ``special services,'' which predominantly includes relatively simple voice-grade services, rather than the more complex services that CLECs order. Id. at paras. 275-276. The revised retail analogue uses provisioning of retail DS-3s instead of retail special services because the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
      • B.2.22.13.1.42W Analog Loop w/LNP Non- Design/<10 circuits/Dispatch In/FL (hours) 18.22 18.66 14.99 19.98 14.87 2,4,5 B.2.22.13.2.12W Analog Loop w/LNP Non- Design/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 30.66 1 B.2.22.14.1.1Other Design/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 18.27 40.57 3,5 B.2.22.15.1.1Other Non-Design/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 21.76 21.29 18.87 19.55 15.52 4,5 B.2.22.17.1.1LNP (Standalone)/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 0.23 7.01 43.55 23.80 2,3,4,5 B.2.22.17.1.2LNP (Standalone)/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.12 4.34 4.24 3.16 1.80 B.2.22.17.2.2LNP (Standalone)/>=10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 0.69 1.94 2.30 4.31 0.62 4,5 B.2.22.18.1.1Digital Loop < DS1/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 32.20 29.48 27.96 35.60 42.39 B - 40 Metric Metric Name [SQM Number] May June July August September Number and Disaggregation BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC BST CLEC Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 Florida Performance Metric Data B.2.22.19.1.1Digital Loop
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
      • 4.32 4.32 1983 1.76 1.54 1.54 2.38 2.10 2.09 3.00 2.70 2.69 3.90 3.28 3.29 4.09 3.42 3.43 4.37 3.63 3.62 4.49 3.74 3.74 4.60 3.84 3.83 5.15 4.32 4.32 1984 1.65 1.48 1.62 2.27 1.96 2.19 2.79 2.56 2.76 3.69 3.33 3.49 3.87 3.48 3.63 4.06 3.72 3.80 4.18 3.84 3.98 4.29 3.96 4.06 4.83 4.47 4.67 1985 1.98 1.80 1.70 2.59 2.33 2.00 3.00 2.82 2.20 3.48 3.29 3.34 3.66 3.48 3.45 3.85 3.72 3.63 3.97 3.84 3.70 4.07 3.96 3.80 4.43 4.28 4.10 1986 1.75 1.67 1.61 2.26 2.12 2.11 2.57 2.47 2.46 2.95 2.85 2.84 3.14 3.04 3.03 3.33 3.25 3.24 3.44 3.35 3.34 3.54 3.46 3.45 3.79 3.68 3.67 1987 1.48 1.45 1.46 1.89 1.85 1.86
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
      • 3.84 3.85 5.15 4.32 4.32 19831.76 1.54 1.54 2.38 2.10 2.09 3.00 2.70 2.69 3.90 3.28 3.29 4.09 3.42 3.43 4.37 3.63 3.62 4.49 3.74 3.74 4.60 3.84 3.83 5.15 4.32 4.32 19841.65 1.48 1.62 2.27 1.96 2.19 2.79 2.56 2.76 3.69 3.33 3.49 3.87 3.48 3.63 4.06 3.72 3.80 4.18 3.84 3.98 4.29 3.96 4.06 4.83 4.47 4.67 19851.98 1.80 1.70 2.59 2.33 2.00 3.00 2.82 2.20 3.48 3.29 3.34 3.66 3.48 3.45 3.85 3.72 3.63 3.97 3.84 3.70 4.07 3.96 3.80 4.43 4.28 4.10 19861.75 1.67 1.61 2.26 2.12 2.11 2.57 2.47 2.46 2.95 2.85 2.84 3.14 3.04 3.03 3.33 3.25 3.24 3.44 3.35 3.34 3.54 3.46 3.45 3.79 3.68 3.67 19871.48 1.45 1.46 1.89 1.85 1.86 2.09 2.04
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
      • 2001 629 1,001 1,035 1,072 926 746 551 2002 641 1,032 1,096 1,109 981 794 579 1980 2.27% 1.97% 1.89% 1.84% 1.82% 1981 2.43 2.04 1.89 1.96 2.09 1982 2.34 2.07 1.87 2.06 2.12 1983 2.32 2.23 1.87 2.07 2.05 1984 2.17 2.02 1.92 1.94 1.93 2.15% 2.39% 1985 2.35 1.92 1.81 1.86 1.91 2.10 2.29 1986 2.42 2.03 1.75 1.80 1.95 2.28 2.59 1987 2.65 2.08 1.86 1.91 2.03 2.12 2.68 1988 2.55 2.07 1.87 2.01 2.11 2.28 2.53 1989 2.39 2.18 1.80 1.99 1.98 2.30 2.26 1990 2.60 2.15 1.92 2.03 2.02 2.28 2.43 1991 2.81 2.15 1.88 2.11 2.01 2.16 2.38 1992 2.72 2.19 1.88 2.01 2.06 2.20 2.37 1993 2.93 2.40 1.96 1.91 2.14 2.19 2.40 1994
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
      • 2002 641 1,032 1,096 1,109 981 794 579 2003 616 1,001 1,097 1,156 981 773 572 1980 2.27% 1.97% 1.89% 1.84% 1.82% 1981 2.43 2.04 1.89 1.96 2.09 1982 2.34 2.07 1.87 2.06 2.12 1983 2.32 2.23 1.87 2.07 2.05 1984 2.17 2.02 1.92 1.94 1.93 2.15% 2.39% 1985 2.35 1.92 1.81 1.86 1.91 2.10 2.29 1986 2.42 2.03 1.75 1.80 1.95 2.28 2.59 1987 2.65 2.08 1.86 1.91 2.03 2.12 2.68 1988 2.55 2.07 1.87 2.01 2.11 2.28 2.53 1989 2.39 2.18 1.80 1.99 1.98 2.30 2.26 1990 2.60 2.15 1.92 2.03 2.02 2.28 2.43 1991 2.81 2.15 1.88 2.11 2.01 2.16 2.38 1992 2.72 2.19 1.88 2.01 2.06 2.20 2.37 1993 2.93 2.40 1.96 1.91 2.14 2.19 2.40 1994
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf
      • Changes from 1986 to 1996 49%55%61%24%27%28% 9%13%14%-5%-2%-1%-8%-8%-4%-10%-11%-10%-13%-13%-10%-15%-16%-13%-18%-16%-16% 157 Appendix 9 Comparison of Basic Schedule Rates as of December 31 Residence Evening Rates for 10 Minute calls 5 Mile Call 16 Mile Call 39 Mile Call 90 Mile Call 200 Mile Call 334 Mile Call 678 Mile Call 1418 Mile Call 2455 Mile Call AT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprint 1980$0.65 $0.91 $1.52 $2.04$0.71$0.92$2.30$0.77$1.00$2.43$0.84$1.08$2.45$0.97$1.16$2.58$1.08$1.28$2.71$1.15$1.32 19810.73 1.05 1.80 2.381.411.072.641.571.162.831.681.252.851.691.352.981.771.483.111.851.53 19821.05$0.65$0.611.42$0.89$0.841.80$1.12$1.052.331.461.392.451.451.442.621.651.542.691.691.602.761.731.633.091.931.82 19831.050.920.891.421.261.191.801.391.302.331.611.592.451.701.682.621.811.722.691.861.802.761.911.823.092.131.99 19840.990.900.971.361.211.311.671.551.652.212.052.092.322.192.232.432.252.332.502.402.432.572.472.492.892.732.69 19851.181.101.121.551.441.321.801.711.452.081.982.052.192.092.132.312.142.252.382.322.302.442.402.362.652.592.56 19861.050.990.981.351.291.281.541.481.461.771.701.681.881.801.791.991.911.902.062.032.022.122.092.082.272.242.23 19870.910.860.901.171.101.161.291.251.281.471.431.451.581.441.561.701.451.681.821.801.811.831.811.821.901.891.89 19880.980.860.901.191.081.151.321.241.281.441.371.401.561.441.561.621.441.631.761.751.771.761.771.781.841.851.86 19891.141.121.121.341.311.321.480.921.451.481.451.451.541.451.451.541.521.521.601.551.551.671.551.551.671.551.55 19901.141.121.121.341.301.301.451.381.401.451.381.401.451.381.401.451.401.401.491.401.401.491.401.401.491.401.40 19911.111.101.111.301.301.301.301.301.301.451.351.401.451.351.401.451.351.401.491.401.401.791.401.401.491.401.40 19921.301.301.301.401.341.401.401.341.401.401.341.401.401.351.401.401.351.401.401.401.401.501.481.501.501.481.50 19931.201.201.201.301.301.301.301.301.301.401.401.401.501.481.501.501.481.501.501.481.501.501.491.501.501.491.50 19941.401.401.401.401.401.401.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.70 19951.401.401.401.401.401.401.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.70 19961.401.401.401.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.90 Percent Changes from 1986 to 1996 33%41%43%19%24%25%10%15%16%-4% 0% 1%-10%-6%-5%-5%-1% 0%-8%-6%-6%-10%-9%-9%-16%-15%-15% 158 Appendix 9 Comparison of Basic Schedule Rates as of December 31 Residence Night Rates for 10 Minute calls 5 Mile Call 16 Mile Call 39 Mile Call 90 Mile Call 200 Mile Call
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
      • 2.2 Basic Schedule Rates of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint for Residential Customers as of December 31 10-minute Evening Call Residence Evening Rates for 10 Minute calls 5 Mile Call 16 Mile Call 39 Mile Call 90 Mile Call 200 Mile Call 334 Mile Call 678 Mile Call 1418 Mile Call 2455 Mile Call AT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprint 1980$0.65 $0.91 $1.52 $2.04$0.71$0.92$2.30$0.77$1.00$2.43$0.84$1.08$2.45$0.97$1.16$2.58$1.08$1.28$2.71$1.15$1.32 19810.73 1.05 1.80 2.381.411.072.641.571.162.831.681.252.851.691.352.981.771.483.111.851.53 19821.05$0.65$0.611.42$0.89$0.841.80$1.12$1.052.331.461.392.451.451.442.621.651.542.691.691.602.761.731.633.091.931.82 19831.050.920.891.421.261.191.801.391.302.331.611.592.451.701.682.621.811.722.691.861.802.761.911.823.092.131.99 19840.990.900.971.361.211.311.671.551.652.212.052.092.322.192.232.432.252.332.502.402.432.572.472.492.892.732.69 19851.181.101.121.551.441.321.801.711.452.081.982.052.192.092.132.312.142.252.382.322.302.442.402.362.652.592.56 19861.050.990.981.351.291.281.541.481.461.771.701.681.881.801.791.991.911.902.062.032.022.122.092.082.272.242.23 19870.910.860.901.171.101.161.291.251.281.471.431.451.581.441.561.701.451.681.821.801.811.831.811.821.901.891.89 19880.980.860.901.191.081.151.321.241.281.441.371.401.561.441.561.621.441.631.761.751.771.761.771.781.841.851.86 19891.141.121.121.341.311.321.480.921.451.481.451.451.541.451.451.541.521.521.601.551.551.671.551.551.671.551.55 19901.141.121.121.341.301.301.451.381.401.451.381.401.451.381.401.451.401.401.491.401.401.491.401.401.491.401.40 19911.111.101.111.301.301.301.301.301.301.451.351.401.451.351.401.451.351.401.491.401.401.791.401.401.491.401.40 19921.301.301.301.401.341.401.401.341.401.401.341.401.401.351.401.401.351.401.401.401.401.501.481.501.501.481.50 19931.201.201.201.301.301.301.301.301.301.401.401.401.501.481.501.501.481.501.501.481.501.501.491.501.501.491.50 19941.401.401.401.401.401.401.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.70 19951.401.401.401.401.401.401.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.70 19961.401.401.401.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.90 19971.601.301.401.601.301.601.601.301.701.601.301.701.601.801.701.601.801.901.601.801.901.601.801.901.601.801.90 Percent Changes from 1987 to 1997 76%51%55%37%18%38%24% 4%33% 9%-9%17% 1%25% 9%-6%24%13%-12%-0% 5%-13%-1% 4%-16%-5% 1% 43 Table 2.3 Basic Schedule Rates of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint for Residential Customers as of December 31 10-minute Night Call Residence Night Rates for 10 Minute calls 5
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
      • 2.2 Basic Schedule Rates of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint for Residential Customers as of December 31 10-minute Evening Call Residence Evening Rates for 10 Minute calls 5 Mile Call 16 Mile Call 39 Mile Call 90 Mile Call 200 Mile Call 334 Mile Call 678 Mile Call 1418 Mile Call 2455 Mile Call AT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprintAT&TMCISprint 1980$0.65 $0.91 $1.52 $2.04$0.71$0.92$2.30$0.77$1.00$2.43$0.84$1.08$2.45$0.97$1.16$2.58$1.08$1.28$2.71$1.15$1.32 19810.73 1.05 1.80 2.381.411.072.641.571.162.831.681.252.851.691.352.981.771.483.111.851.53 19821.05$0.65$0.611.42$0.89$0.841.80$1.12$1.052.331.461.392.451.451.442.621.651.542.691.691.602.761.731.633.091.931.82 19831.050.920.891.421.261.191.801.391.302.331.611.592.451.701.682.621.811.722.691.861.802.761.911.823.092.131.99 19840.990.900.971.361.211.311.671.551.652.212.052.092.322.192.232.432.252.332.502.402.432.572.472.492.892.732.69 19851.181.101.121.551.441.321.801.711.452.081.982.052.192.092.132.312.142.252.382.322.302.442.402.362.652.592.56 19861.050.990.981.351.291.281.541.481.461.771.701.681.881.801.791.991.911.902.062.032.022.122.092.082.272.242.23 19870.910.860.901.171.101.161.291.251.281.471.431.451.581.441.561.701.451.681.821.801.811.831.811.821.901.891.89 19880.980.860.901.191.081.151.321.241.281.441.371.401.561.441.561.621.441.631.761.751.771.761.771.781.841.851.86 19891.141.121.121.341.311.321.480.921.451.481.451.451.541.451.451.541.521.521.601.551.551.671.551.551.671.551.55 19901.141.121.121.341.301.301.451.381.401.451.381.401.451.381.401.451.401.401.491.401.401.491.401.401.491.401.40 19911.111.101.111.301.301.301.301.301.301.451.351.401.451.351.401.451.351.401.491.401.401.791.401.401.491.401.40 19921.301.301.301.401.341.401.401.341.401.401.341.401.401.351.401.401.351.401.401.401.401.501.481.501.501.481.50 19931.201.201.201.301.301.301.301.301.301.401.401.401.501.481.501.501.481.501.501.481.501.501.491.501.501.491.50 19941.401.401.401.401.401.401.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.70 19951.401.401.401.401.401.401.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.70 19961.401.401.401.601.601.601.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.701.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.901.90 19971.601.301.401.601.301.601.601.301.701.601.301.701.601.801.701.601.801.901.601.801.901.601.801.901.601.801.90 19981.601.301.001.601.301.001.601.301.001.601.301.001.601.801.001.601.801.001.601.801.001.601.801.001.601.801.00 Percent change from 1988 to 1998 63%52%11%34%20%-13%21% 5%-22%11%-5%-29% 3%25%-36%-1%25%-39%-9% 3%-44%-9% 2%-44%-13%-3%-46% 45 Table 2.3 Basic Schedule Rates of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint for Residential Customers as of December 31 10-minute Night Call Residence Night Rates for 10 Minute calls 5 Mile Call
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror96.pdf
      • AID TELEPHONE CORP. 12.83 12.38 12.05 14.97 - 12.27 13.83 1/ Report covered the period May 1, 1985 through December 31, 1986. 2/ Did not file report September 30, 1987. Data is from report filed March 31, 1987. MAXIMUM RATE OF RETURN 19.57 MINIMUM RATE OF RETURN 5.74 ARITHMETIC MEAN RATE OF RETURN 12.60 STANDARD DEVIATION OF RATE OF RETURN 1.80 WEIGHTED ARITHMETIC MEAN 12.33 STANDARD DEVIATION 0.97 RATE OF RETURN DATA JANUARY 1, 1987 - DECEMBER 31, 1987 REPORTS FILED MARCH 31, 1988 SWITCHED TRAFFIC SENSITIVE COMMONSPECIAL END LOCAL NO. NAME OF COMPANY INTERSTATE LINE ACCESS OFFICE INFORMATIONTRANSPORT TOTAL AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. PUBLIC SWITCHED NETWORK: 8.61 PRIVATE LINE: 8.67 NATIONAL EXCHANGE CARRIER ASSOCIATION 12.40% 11.94% 16.87% - -
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-95.pdf
      • NEW YORK 6,860 8,732 15,592 7.84 NORTH CAROLINA 2,332 3,373 5,705 2.87 NORTH DAKOTA 236 267 503 0.25 OHIO 3,081 5,306 8,387 4.21 OKLAHOMA 938 1,101 2,039 1.02 OREGON 1,098 1,181 2,280 1.15 PENNSYLVANIA 3,606 4,583 8,189 4.12 RHODE ISLAND 391 312 703 0.35 SOUTH CAROLINA 1,178 1,558 2,736 1.37 SOUTH DAKOTA 251 241 492 0.25 TENNESSEE 1,639 1,942 3,581 1.80 TEXAS 4,964 8,240 13,204 6.63 UTAH 597 540 1,137 0.57 VERMONT 277 200 476 0.24 VIRGINIA 2,403 2,770 5,173 2.60 WASHINGTON 1,885 2,274 4,159 2.09 WEST VIRGINIA 536 645 1,180 0.59 WISCONSIN 1,340 2,014 3,354 1.69 WYOMING 205 165 370 0.19 Alaska and Other Territories na na 1,977 0.99 Total $85,319 $111,709 $199,005 100.00 -8 Table 2 Retail Revenue Interstate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-96.pdf
      • TRS Exch., TRS (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) ALABAMA $822 $54 $876 $958 1.69 $1,002 $24 $1,026 ALASKA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ARIZONA 779 (7) 773 824 1.45 862 20 883 ARKANSAS 323 5 327 428 0.76 448 11 459 CALIFORNIA 5,362 253 5,615 5,703 10.06 5,965 141 6,107 COLORADO 841 134 975 1,019 1.80 1,066 25 1,091 CONNECTICUT 642 179 821 829 1.46 867 21 888 DELAWARE 133 2 135 135 0.24 141 3 145 DIST. OF COLUMBIA 301 57 358 358 0.63 374 9 383 FLORIDA 2,994 376 3,370 3,423 6.04 3,581 85 3,666 GEORGIA 1,670 91 1,761 2,076 3.66 2,172 52 2,224 HAWAII 240 46 287 287 0.51 300 7 307 IDAHO
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-97.pdf
      • 13.0 0.19 53 4 58 4 OHIO 275.9 4.02 1,125 82 1,232 89 OKLAHOMA 68.2 0.99 278 20 304 22 OREGON 79.1 1.15 323 23 353 25 PENNSYLVANIA 313.2 4.56 1,278 93 1,398 101 RHODE ISLAND 25.4 0.37 104 8 113 8 SOUTH CAROLINA 78.0 1.14 318 23 348 25 SOUTH DAKOTA 15.8 0.23 64 5 71 5 TENNESSEE 123.6 1.80 504 37 552 40 TEXAS 459.9 6.70 1,876 136 2,053 148 UTAH 42.1 0.61 172 12 188 14 VERMONT 13.8 0.20 56 4 62 4 VIRGINIA 178.0 2.59 726 53 795 57 WASHINGTON 149.9 2.18 611 44 669 48 WEST VIRGINIA 34.4 0.50 140 10 154 11 WISCONSIN 126.5 1.84 516 38 565 41 WYOMING 10.9 0.16 44 3 49
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
      • $254 $674 $1,509 $2,203 $3,712 1.38% Alaska 199 335 534 75 55 130 274 390 664 0.25 Arizona 1,630 1,854 3,485 558 316 875 2,189 2,171 4,359 1.62 Arkansas 668 1,186 1,854 265 184 449 933 1,370 2,303 0.86 California 7,493 16,098 23,591 2,856 2,937 5,793 10,349 19,035 29,384 10.94 Colorado 1,641 2,276 3,917 583 326 909 2,224 2,602 4,826 1.80 Connecticut 1,294 1,495 2,789 448 169 616 1,742 1,663 3,405 1.27 Delaware 328 329 657 95 36 131 422 365 788 0.29 Dist. of Columbia 465 832 1,297 195 90 285 660 922 1,581 0.59 Florida 5,479 8,285 13,763 1,945 1,515 3,459 7,423 9,799 17,223 6.41 Georgia 2,615 4,267 6,882 1,022 575 1,597 3,636 4,842 8,479 3.16 Hawaii 311 487
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
      • 12,200 4.17 Puerto Rico 414 1,069 1,483 303 184 488 717 1,254 1,971 0.67 Rhode Island 351 461 811 146 54 200 497 515 1,012 0.35 South Carolina 1,141 2,054 3,195 517 335 852 1,658 2,389 4,047 1.38 South Dakota 239 341 580 115 68 183 354 409 763 0.26 Tennessee 1,521 2,719 4,240 677 339 1,016 2,199 3,058 5,256 1.80 Texas 5,265 11,245 16,510 2,742 2,153 4,895 8,007 13,398 21,405 7.31 Utah 626 939 1,566 288 144 432 914 1,084 1,998 0.68 Vermont 229 330 559 108 50 158 337 379 717 0.24 Virgin Islands 45 53 99 21 9 30 67 63 129 0.04 Virginia 2,468 3,667 6,135 1,118 760 1,878 3,586 4,427 8,013 2.74 Washington 1,813 2,989 4,802
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
      • 164 326 452 778 0.27 American Samoa 2 9 11 1 1 2 3 10 13 0.00 Arizona 1,570 2,425 3,995 625 384 1,010 2,195 2,809 5,005 1.71 Arkansas 651 1,274 1,926 300 223 523 951 1,497 2,449 0.84 California 8,130 19,512 27,641 3,541 3,664 7,205 11,670 23,176 34,846 11.92 Colorado 1,487 2,676 4,163 674 420 1,094 2,162 3,096 5,257 1.80 Connecticut 1,184 1,889 3,074 530 236 766 1,714 2,125 3,840 1.31 Delaware 299 396 696 124 49 173 423 446 869 0.30 Dist. of Columbia 417 589 1,006 266 74 340 683 663 1,346 0.46 Florida 5,126 9,172 14,298 2,154 1,657 3,811 7,280 10,829 18,109 6.19 Georgia 2,449 5,040 7,489 1,185 718 1,904 3,634 5,758 9,392 3.21 Guam 33 61
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
      • Total 1995-1999 Alabama $2,668 $2,946 $3,205 $3,394 $674 $3,037 $3,712 1.38% 39.1% Alaska 464 518 561 590 130 534 664 0.25 43.2 Arizona 2,842 3,249 3,667 3,958 875 3,485 4,359 1.62 53.4 Arkansas 1,534 1,719 1,885 2,005 449 1,854 2,303 0.86 50.1 California 22,379 25,100 27,236 28,692 5,793 23,591 29,384 10.94 31.3 Colorado 3,128 3,526 4,006 4,260 909 3,917 4,826 1.80 54.3 Connecticut 2,765 2,943 3,266 3,173 616 2,789 3,405 1.27 23.1 Delaware 492 567 627 685 131 657 788 0.29 60.1 District of Columbia 886 955 1,049 1,085 285 1,297 1,581 0.59 78.4 Florida 11,582 12,972 14,161 15,042 3,459 13,763 17,223 6.41 48.7 Georgia 5,335 6,004 6,849 7,469 1,597 6,882 8,479 3.16 58.9 Guam NA 85 97 103 18 81
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
      • Selected International Points Billed Revenues per Minute 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Australia $1.43 $1.37 $1.35 $1.32 $1.25 $1.09 $1.01 $0.68 $0.30 $0.42 $0.55 Brazil 1.19 1.16 1.16 1.13 1.06 0.97 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.67 0.57 Canada 9/ 0.53 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 China 1.69 1.79 1.76 2.02 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 Colombia 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.15 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 Dominican Republic 1.02 1.07 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.30 Egypt 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.33 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 El Salvador 1.07 1.13 1.15 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 France 1.08 1.08 1.06
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
      • Revenues per Minute 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Percent Change 1997 to 2002 Australia $1.32 $1.25 $1.09 $1.01 $0.68 $0.30 $0.42 $0.55 $0.51 $0.38 $0.27 -10.3% Brazil 1.13 1.06 0.97 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.67 0.57 0.45 0.25 0.22 -69.2 Canada 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 -37.6 China 2.02 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 -79.0 Colombia 1.15 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 -77.0 Dominican Republic 0.97 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 -73.9 Egypt 1.33 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 -73.3 El Salvador 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-1.pdf
      • Iowa 296 123 173 0.89 25 167 Kansas 318 103 215 1.10 31 207 Kentucky 413 161 252 1.29 36 242 Louisiana 409 189 219 1.12 31 211 Maine 179 57 123 0.63 18 118 Maryland 618 274 344 1.76 49 331 Massachusetts 842 326 516 2.64 74 496 Michigan 936 418 518 2.65 74 498 Minnesota 561 211 350 1.80 50 337 Mississippi 236 105 132 0.68 19 127 Missouri 688 236 452 2.32 65 435 Montana 110 42 68 0.35 10 66 Nebraska 197 71 127 0.65 18 122 Nevada 222 88 134 0.69 19 129 New Hampshire 174 63 111 0.57 16 107 New Jersey 1,217 505 712 3.65 102 685 New Mexico 198 82 116 0.59 17
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-11.pdf
      • (111) (82) (29) 26.13 Qwest - Nebraska NE NA NA NA NA Sprint - Centel of Nevada NV (298) (189) (109) 36.58 Verizon - Contel Nevada NV (103) (49) (54) 52.43 SBC - Nevada Bell NV 1,102 1,183 (81) (7.35) Verizon - New England - New Hampshire NH (725) (405) (320) 44.14 Verizon - New Jersey NJ 120,868 123,045 (2,176) (1.80) Sprint - United Telephone Company of New Jersey NJ (193) (148) (44) 22.80 Subject to 11 - 21 Table 11.10 2002 Total Non-Operating Items - Continued ($000) Study Area State Subject to Percent Code Separations Intrastate Interstate Interstate Qwest - New Mexico NM NA NA NA NA Citizens - Red Hook NY 0 0 0 0.00 Citizens - Upstate NY
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
      • NORTHEAST LOUISIANA TEL. CO., INC. 1.19 2.27 -1.06 -0.63 270436 C CENTURY TEL. OF NORTH LOUISIANA, LLC -4.62 2.27 -6.74 -12.15 270438 C RESERVE TEL. CO. -9.08 -3.19 -6.09 -35.26 270439 C CENTURYTEL OF RINGGOLD, LLC 4.69 2.30 2.34 2.76 270440 C CENTURYTEL OF EAST LA, LLC -3.57 2.38 -5.82 -9.51 270441 C STAR TEL. CO., INC. 0.29 -0.47 0.76 -1.80 270442 C CENTURYTEL OF SOUTHWEST LA, LLC 3.92 0.88 3.01 3.38 275183 C SOUTH CENTRAL BELL-LA 5.34 -1.66 7.13 0.00 TOTAL: MAINE 8.09 1.12 6.89 -5.41 100002 C OXFORD WEST TEL. CO. 8.33 1.88 6.33 24.80 100003 C LINCOLNVILLE TEL. CO. -3.51 0.00 -3.50 0.00 100004 C CHINA TEL. CO. -7.17 1.61 -8.64 -50.71 100005 A COBBOSSEECONTEE TEL. CO. 16.25
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-7.pdf
      • 3.714.80 4.00 3.83 19821.76$1.53 $1.532.38 $1.54 $1.553.00 $1.94 $1.923.90 3.28 3.274.09 3.42 3.434.37 3.63 3.624.49 3.74 3.744.60 3.84 3.855.15 4.32 4.32 19831.76 1.54 1.542.38 2.10 2.093.00 2.70 2.693.90 3.28 3.294.09 3.42 3.434.37 3.63 3.624.49 3.74 3.744.60 3.84 3.835.15 4.32 4.32 19841.65 1.48 1.622.27 1.96 2.192.79 2.56 2.763.69 3.33 3.493.87 3.48 3.634.06 3.72 3.804.18 3.84 3.984.29 3.96 4.064.83 4.47 4.67 19851.98 1.80 1.702.59 2.33 2.003.00 2.82 2.203.48 3.29 3.343.66 3.48 3.453.85 3.72 3.633.97 3.84 3.704.07 3.96 3.804.43 4.28 4.10 19861.75 1.67 1.612.26 2.12 2.112.57 2.47 2.462.95 2.85 2.843.14 3.04 3.033.33 3.25 3.243.44 3.35 3.343.54 3.46 3.453.79 3.68 3.67 19871.48 1.45 1.461.89 1.85 1.862.09 2.04 2.062.38 2.32 2.342.56 2.51 2.522.75 2.70 2.702.95 2.90 2.922.96 2.91 2.933.08 3.04 3.04 19881.47 1.44 1.441.78 1.75 1.761.98
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
      • Iowa 289 114 174 0.95 37 184 Kansas 279 96 183 1.00 39 193 Kentucky 311 146 165 0.90 35 174 Louisiana 418 205 214 1.16 46 225 Maine 167 63 104 0.57 22 110 Maryland 653 282 371 2.02 79 391 Massachusetts 855 331 523 2.85 112 551 Michigan 839 391 448 2.44 96 472 Minnesota 538 206 332 1.80 71 349 Mississippi 250 112 138 0.75 29 145 Missouri 628 227 401 2.18 86 422 Montana 111 50 61 0.33 13 64 Nebraska 196 68 128 0.70 27 135 Nevada 221 88 132 0.72 28 139 New Hampshire 172 65 106 0.58 23 112 New Jersey 1,288 505 782 4.25 167 824 New Mexico 200 92 109 0.59 23
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-11.pdf
      • (111) (82) (29) 26.13 Qwest - Nebraska NE 908 1,074 (166) (18.28) Sprint - Centel of Nevada NV (298) (189) (109) 36.58 Verizon - Contel Nevada NV (103) (49) (54) 52.43 SBC - Nevada Bell NV 1,102 1,181 (79) (7.17) Verizon - New England - New Hampshire NH (725) (405) (320) 44.14 Verizon - New Jersey NJ 120,868 123,045 (2,176) (1.80) Sprint - United Telephone Company of New Jersey NJ (193) (148) (44) 22.80 Subject to 11 - 41 Table 11.10 Total Non-Operating Items - Continued ($000) - 2003 Study Area State Subject to Percent Code Separations Intrastate Interstate Interstate Qwest - New Mexico NM (16,195) (16,006) (205) 1.27 % Valor - New Mexico 1 NM (92) (91) (1) 1.09 Valor
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
      • Massachusetts -0.59 -5.01 4.66 -6.68 Michigan -4.36 2.11 -6.34 0.64 Minnesota 0.44 -4.76 5.46 -5.28 Mississippi 2.99 -2.25 5.37 2.94 Missouri -6.52 -3.08 -3.55 -2.17 Montana 1.29 -2.20 3.56 1.08 Nebraska -0.92 -4.70 3.97 9.03 Nevada 0.07 -0.21 0.28 -7.60 New Hampshire -5.90 -4.97 -0.98 5.90 New Jersey -0.97 -4.26 3.44 0.00 New Mexico 2.32 -1.38 3.75 11.16 New York 1.80 -3.79 5.81 -1.36 North Carolina -0.31 -2.11 1.83 14.70 North Dakota 0.91 -0.79 1.71 -2.52 Northern Mariana Islands -11.06 3.18 -13.81 -100.00 Ohio 0.98 -2.31 3.36 -3.07 Oklahoma -4.60 -5.03 0.45 5.02 Oregon 1.31 -4.04 5.58 -2.48 Pennsylvania 0.00 -3.61 3.75 14.96 Puerto Rico -4.17 -3.59 -0.60 -100.00 Rhode Island -3.65 -7.22 3.84 0.00 South Carolina 1.10 -2.30 3.48 4.39
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
      • 6,150 1.23 18,819 3.75 Northern Mariana Islands 3,310 11.06 250 0.84 3,060 10.22 Ohio 19,587 0.23 76,233 0.91 -56,646 -0.67 Oklahoma 65,942 2.63 24,417 0.98 41,525 1.66 Oregon 46,888 1.84 28,937 1.13 17,951 0.70 Pennsylvania 28,812 0.28 92,121 0.91 -63,309 -0.62 Puerto Rico 143,591 9.24 12,891 0.83 130,701 8.41 Rhode Island 25 0.00 9,839 1.21 -9,814 -1.21 South Carolina 50,342 1.80 32,039 1.15 18,303 0.65 South Dakota 20,953 4.07 6,826 1.32 14,128 2.74 Tennessee 34,352 0.83 42,893 1.04 -8,541 -0.21 Texas 136,446 0.86 139,931 0.89 -3,485 -0.02 Utah 12,347 0.87 17,143 1.21 -4,795 -0.34 Vermont 25,913 5.19 6,274 1.26 19,638 3.93 Virgin Islands 24,153 29.94 1,295 1.60 22,858 28.33 Virginia 37,126 0.65 66,631 1.17 -29,505 -0.52 Washington 51,259 1.14 49,844 1.11
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
      • 12,200 4.17 Puerto Rico 414 1,069 1,483 303 184 488 717 1,254 1,971 0.67 Rhode Island 351 461 811 146 54 200 497 515 1,012 0.35 South Carolina 1,141 2,054 3,195 517 335 852 1,658 2,389 4,047 1.38 South Dakota 239 341 580 115 68 183 354 409 763 0.26 Tennessee 1,521 2,719 4,240 677 339 1,016 2,199 3,058 5,256 1.80 Texas 5,265 11,245 16,510 2,742 2,153 4,895 8,007 13,398 21,405 7.31 Utah 626 939 1,566 288 144 432 914 1,084 1,998 0.68 Vermont 229 330 559 108 50 158 337 379 717 0.24 Virgin Islands 45 53 99 21 9 30 67 63 129 0.04 Virginia 2,468 3,667 6,135 1,118 760 1,878 3,586 4,427 8,013 2.74 Washington 1,813 2,989 4,802
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
      • 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 China 3.43 3.72 3.48 3.37 2.93 2.91 2.67 2.13 1.69 1.40 1.01 0.72 0.70 Colombia 1.85 1.75 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.55 0.38 Dominican Republic 10/ 1.45 1.42 1.39 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 0.38 Egypt 1.95 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 El Salvador 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 France 10/ 1.58 1.71 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 Germany 1.58 1.71 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 Greece 2.15 2.32 2.19 1.66 1.55
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
      • 10/ 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 China 3.72 3.48 3.37 2.93 2.91 2.67 2.13 1.69 1.40 1.01 0.71 0.40 0.40 Colombia 1.75 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.55 0.38 0.38 Dominican Republic 10/ 1.42 1.39 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Egypt 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 0.46 El Salvador 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 France 10/ 1.71 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.19 Germany 1.71 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.19 Greece 2.32 2.19 1.66 1.55
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
      • 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 China 3.48 3.37 2.93 2.91 2.67 2.13 1.69 1.40 1.01 0.72 0.40 0.36 0.36 Colombia 9/ 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.55 0.38 0.38 0.38 Dominican Republic 8/ 9/ 1.39 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Egypt 9/ 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 0.46 0.46 El Salvador 9/ 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.38 France 9/ 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Germany 9/ 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Greece 9/
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
      • 0.48 0.38 France 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 Germany 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 Greece 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 Guatemala 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 Haiti 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.60 0.46 Hong Kong 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 India 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28 1.08 0.85 0.68 0.46 0.46 Israel 2.28 2.16 2.16 1.90 1.18 0.70 0.59 Italy 1.65 1.51 1.22 0.71 0.52 0.33 Jamaica 1.55 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.25 1.05 0.60 Japan 1.31 1.04 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.86 Korea, Rep. 1.60 1.44 1.41 1.26 1.23 0.98 0.85 0.71 0.51 Mexico 7/ 0.72 0.68 0.58 0.53 0.485 0.395
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
      • 2.29 1.82 1.94 1.43 1.27 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM UNITED KINGDOM (INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.31 0.91 0.83 1.12 0.83 0.75 THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, ENGLAND, ALL OTHER* 1.79 1.44 1.22 1.24 0.95 0.79 ISLE OF MAN, NORTHERN IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES) 8AM-6PM 6PM-MIDN MIDN-8AM 8AM-6PM 6PM-MIDN MIDN-8AM VENEZUELA INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.57 1.02 0.92 1.40 0.92 0.84 ALL OTHER* 2.26 1.80 1.46 1.42 0.93 0.85 CLASS OF SERVICE SERVICE CHARGE PER CALL CUSTOMER DIALED CALLING CARD STATION: CUSTOMER DIALED/AUTOMATED $3.00 CUSTOMER DIALED AND OPERATOR ASSISTED 4.50 CUSTOMER DIALED AND OPERATOR MUST ASSIST 4.50 OPERATOR STATION: BILLED TO THIRD PARTY 7.00 SENT PAID 4.50 PERSON-TO-PERSON 7.00 SOURCE: AT&T COMMUNICATIONS TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 27 RATES IN EFFECT NOVEMBER 1995. * INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
      • TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN FIVE TEN 1950 1/ 3.70 6.70 3.00 5.50 2.20 3.95 1.60 2.85 0.70 1.20 0.55 1.05 1951 3.70 6.70 3.00 5.50 2.20 3.95 1.60 2.85 0.70 1.20 0.55 1.05 1952 2/ 3.70 6.70 3.00 5.50 2.20 3.95 1.60 2.85 0.70 1.20 0.55 1.05 1953 3/ 3.80 7.05 3.10 5.85 2.30 4.30 1.80 3.30 0.80 1.55 0.60 1.10 1954 3.80 7.05 3.10 5.85 2.30 4.30 1.80 3.30 0.80 1.55 0.60 1.10 1955 3.80 7.05 3.10 5.85 2.30 4.30 1.80 3.30 0.80 1.55 0.60 1.10 1956 3.80 7.05 3.10 5.85 2.30 4.30 1.80 3.30 0.80 1.55 0.60 1.10 1957 3.80 7.05 3.10 5.85 2.30 4.30 1.80 3.30 0.80 1.55 0.60 1.10 1958 3.80 7.05
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
      • 0.13 (12.74) (15.55) 13.3 GA HAWAII 131.3 84.4 46.9 40.0 6.9 0.89 (0.08) 0.55 1.36 5.6 HI IDAHO 12.1 15.3 (3.2) (3.2) (0.0) (2.18) (1.10) (0.76) (4.03) 4.0 ID ILLINOIS 480.8 339.1 141.7 115.4 26.3 (0.86) (0.61) 0.11 (1.36) 27.7 IL INDIANA 267.2 191.5 75.7 58.1 17.6 2.21 0.33 0.71 3.25 14.3 IN IOWA 24.3 31.3 (7.0) (6.0) (1.0) (3.15) (1.80) (1.74) (6.69) 5.6 IA KANSAS 98.8 67.8 31.0 26.2 4.8 (0.40) (0.03) 0.01 (0.42) 5.3 KS KENTUCKY 89.8 48.3 41.4 34.6 6.9 0.48 (0.16) 0.21 0.53 6.3 KY LOUISIANA 102.3 49.7 52.6 46.7 5.9 (1.59) 0.04 (1.55) 7.4 LA MAINE 23.8 6.3 17.5 13.1 4.5 0.79 0.00 0.10 0.90 3.6 ME MARYLAND 211.4 107.4 104.0 72.1 31.9 6.78 2.91 4.52
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
      • INCLUDE CALLS BETWEEN MEXICO AND THE U.S. MAINLAND, GUAM OR COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (CNMI). ** INCLUDING REAL TIME RATED CALLS AND ALL COLLECT CALLS. 229 STATISTICS OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIERS TABLE 5.6-AT&T RATES FOR LONG DISTANCE MESSAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE UNITED STATES-OVERSEAS DIAL STATION DIAL STATION COUNTRY STANDARD ECONOMY COUNTRY STANDARD ECONOMY ARGENTINA $2.30 $1.58 JAMAICA $1.90 $1.56 AUSTRALIA 1.80 1.24 JAPAN (INCLUDING OKINAWA) 1.73 1.25 AUSTRIA 1.72 1.23 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 2.16 1.52 BAHAMAS 1.37 1.10 NETHERLANDS 1.57 1.02 BELGIUM 1.84 1.18 NIGERIA, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF 2.33 1.84 BERMUDA 1.48 1.23 PAKISTAN 4.92 3.23 BRAZIL 2.19 1.60 PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF 2.09 1.60 CHILE 2.08 1.63 PERU 2.37 1.66 CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 3.10 2.40 PHILIPPINES 2.59 1.74 COLOMBIA 2.22
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
      • 1.50 1.40 1.27 1.14 1.03 0.85 0.65 0.60 0.38 Canada 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 China 3.72 3.48 3.37 2.93 2.91 2.67 2.13 1.69 1.40 1.01 0.98 Colombia 1.75 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.65 Dominican Republic 1.42 1.39 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 Egypt 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.90 El Salvador 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.60 France 1.71 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.20 Germany 1.71 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 Greece 2.32 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.29 Guatemala 1.50
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/prelim02socc.pdf
      • 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 China 3.48 3.37 2.93 2.91 2.67 2.13 1.69 1.40 1.01 0.72 0.40 0.36 0.36 Colombia 10/ 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.55 0.38 0.38 0.38 Dominican Republic 8/ 10/ 1.39 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Egypt 10/ 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 0.46 0.46 El Salvador 10/ 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.38 France 10/ 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Germany 10/ 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Greece 10/
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/scard95.pdf
      • description of the requested information. Description of Appendix 20 COMMON CARRIER SCORECARD REPORT Complaints per Million $ in Revenues APPENDIX A Companies Served with 20 or More Complaints in 1995 Companies Served with 20 or More Complaints in 1995 Company Communications Revenues (Notes) Complaints Absolute Telecommunications 76 Alltel Corporation 33 1,197,673,000 (1) 0.03 American Network Exchange, Inc. 182 101,000,000 (2) 1.80 American Telecommunications Enterprises, Inc. 87 American Teletronics 83 Ameritech 553 10,936,300,000 (1) 0.05 AT&T Corporation 2,316 38,069,000,000 (2) 0.06 Bell Atlantic 762 12,163,345,000 (1) 0.06 BellSouth Telecommunication, Inc. 597 13,900,610,000 (1) 0.04 Capital Network Systems, Inc. 160 100,000,000 (3) 1.60 Cherry Communications 28 Cleartel Communications 35 Communication TeleSystems International 381 115,000,000 (2) 3.31 dba WorldxChange Communications Gateway Network 77 Conquest
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97218.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97218.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97218.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) The Commission's Forfeiture ) CI Docket No. 95-6 Policy Statement and ) Amendment of Section 1.80 ) of the Rules to Incorporate ) the Forfeiture Guidelines ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: June 19, 1997 Released: July 28, 1997 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Forfeiture versus the traditional 5 case-by-case approach B. Proposal Modifications 9 (i) Use of the same base forfeiture amount for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Consumer_Information/Orders/1999/fcc99407.doc
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit � � � f � � � Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) The Commission's Forfeiture ) CI Docket No. 95-6 Policy Statement and Amendment ) Of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate ) the Forfeiture Guidelines ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 21, 1999 Released: December 28, 1999 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this order, we deny two petitions for reconsideration of Report and Order in this proceeding, both relating to interpretation of Section 504(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/News_Releases/2000/nren0019.doc
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit � > > > > > > > > > > 2 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: September 19, 2000 Richard Welch (202) 418-7450 FCC ADJUSTS MAXIMUM FORFEITURE PENALTIES TO REFLECT INFLATION Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Communications Commission amended Section 1.80(b) of its Rules to increase the maximum monetary forfeiture penalties available to the Commission. This action adjusts the maximum forfeiture penalties to account for the growth in the Consumer Price Index since 1995, as required by the Debt Collection Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. � 2461. The amendment of Section 1.80(b) will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Notices/2000/da000521.doc
      • or broadcast at the beginning of a telephone call, if the conversation is already being taped or broadcast. Rather, ``notice of intent to broadcast a conversation [must] actually precede the recording or transmission of the telephone call.'' Id., see also KIDS-TV 6, 14 FCC Rcd 13351 (MMB 1999). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Notices/2000/da000883.doc
      • supplement broadcast announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadcast announcements. The dispute between Ms. Barto and AK concerning their different understandings of the rules for the ``$10,000 Music Challenge'' demonstrates why it is important for stations to broadcast all of the material terms of a contest. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Notices/2000/da000951.doc
      • organs in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired between 6:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on February 26, 1999, Station KROR-FM, violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Notices/2000/da001010.doc
      • inform any party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation. In this case, WLI clearly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by calling Ms. Macareno's daughter and broadcasting the conversation without giving her prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Notices/2000/fcc00261.doc
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Intellicall continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Intellicall's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Intellicall Operator Services is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred ninety eight thousand dollars ($198,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Notices/2000/fcc00262.doc
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Matrix continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Matrix's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Matrix Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Notices/2000/fcc00263.doc
      • and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 34 unsolicited advertisements identified above. We have further determined that Carolina Liquidators is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $230,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Carolina Liquidators, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $230,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/da992734.doc
      • a $9,000 forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the ``Request for Reduction or Remission of Forfeiture'' filed October 29, 1999, by Entergy Security Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent Entergy seeks a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $12,000 to $9,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that Entergy SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of nine thousand dollars ($9,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 310(d) of the Communications of Act of 1934, as amended, and former Section 101.53(a) of the Commission's Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent, by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/da992764.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/da992764.txt
      • RADIO BROADCASTING, INC. Licensee of Station WPBZ(FM) Indiantown, Florida ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Control No. 99070100 Adopted: December 9, 1999 Released: December 10, 1999 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, against Palm Beach Radio Broadcasting, Inc. (``PBRB''), licensee of Station WPBZ(FM), Indiantown, FL. We find that PBRB broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that PBRB is apparently
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/da992835.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/da992835.txt
      • INC. Licensee of Station WJLK-FM Asbury Park, New Jersey ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Control No. 99040217 Adopted: December 16, 1999 Released: December 17, 1999 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, against Nassau Broadcasting Partners, Inc. (``Nassau''), licensee of Station WJLK-FM, Asbury Park, NJ. We find that Nassau recorded and broadcast two telephone conversations without first informing the parties to the conversations of its intention to do so, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Nassau
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/1999/fcc99391.doc
      • or other device to send 19 unsolicited advertisements to the eight consumers identified above. We have further determined that Get-Aways is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $4,500 for each such violation resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $85,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $85,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000057.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000057.txt
      • carriers and consumers. In addition, in the wake of the directives from the International Bureau, the violation appears to be intentional. Under these circumstances, we conclude that a forfeiture in the amount of $100,000 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.311(4) and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Telmex International Ventures USA, Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating a condition of its section 214 authorization and the underlying transfer of control order. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000080.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000080.txt
      • Birmingham, Alabama ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Control No. 9910202 NAL/Acct. No. X32080001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 13, 2000 Released: January 18, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, against CXR Holdings, Inc. (``Cox''), licensee of Station WAGG(AM), Birmingham, Alabama. We find that Cox broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Cox is apparently liable for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000141.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000141.txt
      • history of overall compliance, the violation was continuous over a 16-month period. We therefore conclude that the base forfeiture amount should neither be adjusted upward nor downward as the adjustment criteria offset each other. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b) and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4), that Queen of Peace Radio, Inc., licensee of Station WQOP, Atlantic Beach, Florida, FORFEIT to the United States the sum of $7,000 (seven thousand dollars) for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 73.1125. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000146.txt
      • even where the recipent has filed for bankruptcy protection. See In the Matter of Liability of J.C. Maxwell Broadcasting Group, Inc., Licensee of Noncommercial Radio Station WMPR(FM), Jackson, MS, For a Forfeiture, 8 FCC Rcd 784 (1993). Therefore, we affirm the forfeiture amount of $20,000. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, William Flippo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for the willful violation of Sections 301 and 333 of the Act and Section 15.29 of the Rules. nications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 915TP0006'' and mailed to the following address: Federal Communications Commission P.O. Box 73482 Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482 nications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000225.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000225.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000225.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000225.wp
      • Case No. 99DV446 Sterling, Colorado 80751 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 7, 1999 Released: February 9, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``Arnold Broadcasting'') in the amount of $16,000 pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violations of Sections 11.35, 11.61, 17.4, 73.1225, 73.1350, 73.1820, and 73.1870 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 11.35, 11.61, 17.4, 73.1225, 73.1350, 73.1820, and 73.1870. These violations include failure to comply with the Rules for Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment and antenna structure registration, as well as numerous
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000227.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000227.txt
      • find that the violations were willful. The Commission has held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if it is a conscious and deliberate act or omission, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the violations warrant the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules require us to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission has adopted guidelines for assessing forfeitures. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000231.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000231.txt
      • L. Leavell ) Case No. 99ST10 Seattle, Washington 98818 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 8, 2000 Released: February 9, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against William L. Leavell, in the amount of $2,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violation of Section 303(n) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 303(n), and Section 95.426 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 95.426, regarding refusal to allow an inspection of radio station equipment. BACKGROUND 2. On November 2, 1998, agents of the Commission's Seattle Field Office investigated complaints that Mr.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000235.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000235.txt
      • Its violation was thus not only wilfull, but intentional. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Supervalu's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, NAL No. 915ST0001, issued on January 19, 1999, IS DENIED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, Supervalu, Inc. must pay the amount of $11,000 within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on an U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. Payment may also be made by credit card with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000238.doc
      • non-broadcast means (such as the World Wide Web) can be considered in determining whether adequate disclosure has been made, the non-broadcast disclosures must be ``[i]n addition to the required broadcast announcements. . . .'' Id. Thus, while non-broadcast disclosures can supplement broadcast announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadcast announcements. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000244.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000244.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $ 1,500. We note that Suburban Cellular, LLC failed to respond to that NAL. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Suburban Cellular IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $ 1,500 for willful violation of Section 22.142(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 22.142(b). 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80(f) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f), Suburban Cellular shall, within thirty (30)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000325.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000325.txt
      • the Act and Section 24.803 of the Rules by operating its PCS facilities in BTA 474 without a Commission authorization during the period covered by the applicable statute of limitations (one year prior to the date of adoption of this Notice of Apparent Liability) through November 22, 1999. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') the base amount for the violations detailed in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $10,000 (operation without an instrument of authorization for the service). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000380.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000380.txt
      • to the NAL, Buchanan requested reduction of the forfeiture amount. In its March 22, 1999, Forfeiture Order, CIB reduced the forfeiture amount to $10,000 on the basis of Buchanan's inability to pay a larger amount. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, CIB followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407 (Released December 28, 1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000396.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000396.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000396.txt
      • amount of $8,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Subsequently, on June 19, 1998, the Chief, Compliance Division, issued the Forfeiture Order affirming the monetary amount of $8,000. DISCUSSION 5. The Field Office issued the forfeiture pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Field Office followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, released December 28, 1999 ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000409.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000409.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000409.txt
      • violations. See Forfeiture Policy Statement. In light of the facts presented in this case, we find that the licensee made a ``good faith'' effort to comply with the rule. Accordingly, rescission of the forfeiture is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, and Section 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the prior forfeiture of $4,000 issued against Long Nine, Inc. for violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules IS RESCINDED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested, to counsel for the licensee, David D. Oxenford, Esq., Fisher Wayland Cooper Leader &
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000420.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000420.txt
      • 1998). Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, art. 10(1), 15 U.S.T. 1606, 516 U.N.T.S. 205. 47 C.F.R. �� 22.911(d), 22.912(a). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.3, 22.119(a). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 22568, � 31 (rel. Nov. 10, 1998); see also 47 U.S.C. �� 208, 503((b); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(e). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-420 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-420 E H W a b d e q r F G H b c �@��� iI�G���
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000475.doc
      • 33617 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: March 2, 2000 Released: March 3, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against Leslie D. Brewer, d/b/a/ L.D. Brewer's 2-way Radio (collectively, ``Mr. Brewer''), in the amount of $10,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violation of Sections 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b). These violations are based on the marketing of a transmitter not authorized by the Commission. The transmitter at issue was sold to an undercover agent of the Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office. BACKGROUND
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000476.doc
      • provided copies of its 1996 and 1997 federal income tax returns with its August, 1999, response and provided a copy of its 1998 federal income tax returns with a supplemental response received September 28, 1999. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Natchez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000485.doc
      • Mr. James Farlow has raised in response to both the underlying Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") and the Forfeiture Order. The NAL proposed and the Forfeiture Order affirmed imposition of a forfeiture against Mr. Farlow in the amount of $7,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C. ( 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, ("the Rules"), 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80, for willful violation of Section 303(n) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 303(n), and Section 95.426 of the Rules (CB Rule 26), 47 C.F.R. ( 95.426. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the $7,000 forfeiture amount. 2. The Bureau's Norfolk, Virginia, office received a complaint that Mr. Farlow's citizen's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000511.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000511.txt
      • and Ordering Clauses 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that WTTW's request for reduction or rescission filed January 2, 1998 IS GRANTED to the extent that we approve a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $5,000 to $2,000. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Window to the World Communications, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational television station WTTW (TV), Chicago, Illinois, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000), for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 399b, and Section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules. 6.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000516.doc
      • to Bernard A. Solnik, Esq., Case No. 02120518 (MMB March 25, 1996). None of these rulings contain any analysis or discussion of the digital delay system. Moreover, none of the language in those rulings is inconsistent with the plain language of the rule, which clearly requires prior notification. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000526.doc
      • revisiting issues previously addressed, or for reducing or rescinding the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 915TP0004 IS DENIED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000535.doc
      • is establishing a procedure to ensure that certificate violations will not occur in the future; and it is rare for Sealand, which operates almost 40 U.S. flag vessels, to miss the renewal of a Safety Certificate. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 364(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), requires that the Commission, in examining Sealand's response, take into account the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000561.doc
      • account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Those factors include the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. See also Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules. After considering all of the circumstances, we believe the ends of justice will be served by imposing the forfeiture for the main studio rule violation but canceling the forfeiture for the public file rule violation. 6. With respect to the main studio violation, we note that we recently imposed a forfeiture of $7,000 for willful and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000571.doc
      • submission is not supported in this manner and, therefore, provides no reliable basis for Hoosier's claim of inability to pay. In any event, the material that Hoosier did submit indicates gross revenues of approximately $52,000 for 1998. A $4,000 forfeiture under these circumstances is not excessive. 8. The forfeiture standards in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines sets $5,000 as the base forfeiture amount for a willful violation of Section 73.1350(a). The Field Office and the Bureau reviewed the record, which included Hoosier's operating history and claims of vandalism, and concluded that a $4,000 forfeiture was indicated instead of the $5,000 base forfeiture amount. We affirm that conclusion. IV.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000572.doc
      • on April 7, 1999. On April 23, 1999, the Commission's staff returned those applications to Pampa as defective. Pampa refiled the applications on May 28, 1999, and the Commission's staff granted them on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) to Pampa for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Pampa's response to the NAL. In that response, Pampa asserted, among other arguments, that it requested application forms from the Commission on March 24, 1999, but
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000578.doc
      • Finally, Western contends that the proposed monetary forfeiture is ``excessive'' and provides copies of Western's 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal income tax returns as well as ``cash flow statements'' from March, April, May, and June 1999. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Western's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000579.doc
      • intent, the cited violations were willful. The Bureau also noted that while remedial action to correct a violation is commendable, it will not nullify a forfeiture penalty, and, further, that Northwest had not provided any documentary evidence to evaluate its ability to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407 (Released December 28, 1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000590.doc
      • a forfeiture only for the period from December 11, 1997 until October 30, 1998 because WS' application for renewal of license was granted on December 11, 1997, and a forfeiture for violations prior to that time is barred by the statute of limitations. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(A). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000619.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000619.txt
      • Rather, the application or request for program test authority or STA must be granted or WBC must terminate all unauthorized operation of Station WRHC. Otherwise, WBC risks loss of the license for Station WRHC as well as additional forfeiture penalties. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for violating the terms and conditions of its license and the Commission's rules requiring operation within the parameters set forth in the license, and requiring express permission prior to a permittee's operation or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000622.doc
      • EchoStar was required to carry 13 channels of noncommercial programming of an educational or informational nature on December 15, 1999. It was carrying only four such channels on that date. EchoStar's conduct is an apparent violation of Section 335 of the Act and Section 100.5 of our rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000635.doc
      • NALs that were issued and mailed to them prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, CSBDA and Westall cannot now claim that the NALs fail because they were not issued within the timeframe established by 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(B). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Colorado Small Business Development Association, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $10,000, and Westall Communications, d/b/a M.T.W. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $12,000, for violating the provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules requiring that radio transmitters be operated in accordance with a proper authorization granted
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000636.doc
      • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars (20,000). Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000637.doc
      • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Mar-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,2 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,3 Mar-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, 17.50 and 17.56(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000638.doc
      • Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. Willis Broadcasting has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Willis Broadcasting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 73.1213(b) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000639.doc
      • Telecommunications Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000). Simon Property has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Simon Property IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, former Section 90.113 of the Commission's Rules and Section 1.903 of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000696.doc
      • addition, Sunjet asserted that the proposed $7,000 forfeiture is excessive in comparison with its gross revenues of less than $80,000. However, Sunjet did not provide any tax returns or financial statements to support this claim. III. DISCUSSION 11. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Sunjet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000709.doc
      • Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. Willis Broadcasting Corporation has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, Willis Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty (30) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000765.doc
      • amplifiers; and that Two Way collects sales taxes and charges $38.50 for installation and tuning. In addition, Two Way states, if its response does not close this matter, it is making a ``motion for Discovery.'' III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (Released Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Two Way's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000766.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000766.txt
      • website, offered tee-shirts for sale, and detailed his work experience under the name ``DJ New York.'' During a telephone conversation with Commission staff, James N. Dispoto stated that his full-time occupation is operating his internet radio station, which, according to him, just breaks even. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000848.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000848.txt
      • support that claim. The financial statements, which are marked ``unaudited'' and do not contain a certification of their correctness, indicate that KNFL's gross revenues were $56,387 in 1996, $80,888 in 1997 and $119,654 in 1998. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KNFL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000897.doc
      • EAS ($8,000) and public file ($9,000) violations. 9. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 405, the petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding is hereby DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 14 FCC Rcd 6106 (Compl. & Inf. Bur. 1999). 47 U.S.C. ( 503 (b). 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80. This violation was previously incorrectly cited as a violation of Section 73.3526(d). The incorrect rule cite has no impact on the case because the facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that the rule that was violated was Section 73.3526(c); however, we are taking this opportunity to correct the cite. This violation will be properly referred to as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000906.doc
      • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcomm further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcomm is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000907.doc
      • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcom further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcom is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000908.doc
      • that it ``never authorized ACS to relocate the WPIM675 repeater . . . [and] . . . was not aware of any such relocation'' and that ``ACS never intended to relocate facilities licensed to Arvada.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Arvada's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000940.doc
      • new person within the Office of the Sheriff as the point of contact for all matters related to the license, and has notified the Commission of this assignment. III. DISCUSSION 5. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case, and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the forfeiture issued against County of Surry IS RESCINDED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000948.doc
      • violations, when coupled with its culpability, offset Bay's overall history and market situation. Further, neither Bay's small business status nor its asserted inability to pay warrants reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. The forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Bay Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000). The forfeiture is imposed for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 73.1201, 73.1675, 73.1690 and 74.1251 of the Commission's rules. Among other things, those provisions proscribe operation of unlicensed transmitters; certain modifications to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000960.doc
      • consummated the assignments. Champion's authorizations expired on April 1, 1999. Champion, however, did not file applications for the renewal of those authorizations until June 3, 1999. WTB granted the late-filed renewal applications on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to Champion for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Champion's response to the NAL. In that response, Champion argues that its failure to file timely renewal applications was not willful because it did not know
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000970.doc
      • any and all violations occurring during the period from 1993 to 1999 as a ``convenient target.'' Finally, Mr. Holcombe argues that he has been denied a fair hearing of the facts and the right to due process. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Holcombe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000977.doc
      • Meyers contends that the reference in the NAL to the interference complaints received by the Houston Office between 1993 and 1999 unfairly suggests that he is responsible for those violations and was intended to prejudice the Commission. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Meyers' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001011.doc
      • $2,000 as the base amount for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. In this case, we believe that a forfeiture of $1,000 is appropriate due to the prior unblemished enforcement record of the licensee. IV. Ordering Clauses 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Southern Rhode Island Public Radio Broadcasting, Inc., licensee, noncommercial educational Station WBLQ(FM), Westerly, Rhode Island, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. Section 399b and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001016.doc
      • question was 1,000,000 Turkish lira. The Commission has held that licensees are ``responsible for broadcasting accurate statements as to the nature and value of contest prizes, and will be held accountable for any announcement which tends to mislead the public.'' WMJX, Inc., 48 RR 2d 1339, 1357 (1981). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001095.doc
      • appropriate tool to punish its prior violations and to ensure future compliance with our rules. We believe a $4,000 forfeiture will act as an appropriate punishment and deterrent without unduly disrupting WS's ability to serve the public. Ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, WS Communications, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful and repeated violations of Section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001096.doc
      • [agency's] discretion.'' Id., 88 F.3d at 747, citing NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974). Infinity has wholly failed to show that there has been any abuse of that discretion in this case. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1206. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001182.doc
      • the Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base amount of $11,000 for violations of this nature. The correct base forfeiture amount for operation of a radio station without a valid Commission license or authorization is $10,000. We therefore reduce the forfeiture amount to $10,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean R. Jonassaint, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001190.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001190.txt
      • Bay Broadcasting Corporation (``Bay'') for apparent willful and repeated failures to broadcast required station identification announcements on radio station KBBR(AM), North Bend, Oregon, in violation of section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1201. We take this action pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. We also admonish Bay for continuing to use a long wire antenna without Commission authorization for radio station KHSN(AM), Coos Bay, Oregon, and for continuing to operate that station's transmitter at an unauthorized location, even after receiving a Notice of Violation (``NOV'') and a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001197.doc
      • reduction of the forfeiture amount as a ``small business'' subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (``SBREFA''). III. DISCUSSION 7. Callcomm initially responds to the NAL by stating that because it ``is not the licensee of the transmitter located on Eldorado Mountain,'' the Field Office should have followed the dictates of Section 503(b)(5) of the Act and Section 1.80(d) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), for non-Commission licensees, prior to issuing the NAL. Specifically, Callcomm states that the Field Office should have given it a citation of the violation charged, a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview at the Field Office closest to Callcomm, and an opportunity to cure the violation before it issued the NAL. However, Callcomm overlooks the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001234.doc
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to La Favorita in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the noted violation. La Favorita has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, La Favorita, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful violation of Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001235.doc
      • On July 26, 1999, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a $2,000 monetary forfeiture. Redondo Beach has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, the City of Redondo Beach, California IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act, former Section 90.113 of the Rules, and current Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001428.doc
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Leonard D. Martin, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001435.doc
      • no reason to await issuance of the guidelines before imposing the forfeiture order in this case. In the absence of any substantive response to our NAL, we impose a forfeiture for the full amount originally proposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Citicasters Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001454.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001454.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Reier for the noted violation. Reier has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Reier Broadcasting Company, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for failing to enclose its AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence in violation of Section 73.49 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001494.doc
      • Petition for Reconsideration raises several issues regarding the investigation, alleges that the record contains factual discrepancies, and contends that facts that were not disclosed in the underlying NAL were used as support in the Forfeiture Order. 5. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that remission of the $7,000 forfeiture is warranted. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $7,000 forfeiture issued to John A. Acconey IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Acconey's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001499.doc
      • In assessing the forfeiture amount for the tower fencing violation, the NAL noted the inspecting FCC agent's conclusion that Culpeper was aware of the deficiencies in the fence prior to the inspection, making this violation willful. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations, the Columbia Field Office noted that The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines listed a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the fencing violation and $4,000 for the excessive power violation. After considering Culpeper's history of compliance with respect to its operation of WCVA, the Columbia Field Office reduced the forfeiture amount for the excessive power violation to $2,000. No corresponding reduction was deemed to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001523.doc
      • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) to Morradio, Inc. for the referenced violations. Morradio has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Morradio, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b), and 73.3538(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001524.doc
      • further discussion. However, as explained below, we conclude that Ms. Gizzo has justified a reduction of the base forfeiture amount in light of her inability to pay. Ms. Gizzo argues that, under SBREFA, she is entitled to reduction of the forfeiture amount as a small business. The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidelines for upward and downward adjustment of forfeitures. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied, 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Under these guidelines, we consider a licensee's ability to pay as a relevant factor in assessing forfeitures. Our review of Ms. Gizzo's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001551.doc
      • to the Commission or to a charitable organization of his choice, as determined most appropriate by the Commission; and permit an authorized Commission agent to inspect his residence to ensure all equipment has been removed. III. DISCUSSION 12. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Martin's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001567.doc
      • in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on or about January 12, 1999, Station KRXK(AM), violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001574.doc
      • Broadcasting, based on the information submitted we would find no reason to reduce its forfeiture amount. 10. Turning to ARS Broadcasting's claim that it might qualify as a small business, we will assume, for this discussion only, that it qualifies as a small business. The Commission, following Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and through its Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. Using this guidance, we do not find that ARS Broadcasting is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture amount. 11. After examining ARS Broadcasting's response to the NAL under Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001578.doc
      • demonstrate licensee's ``good faith'' effort to comply with Commission rules and justify mitigation). In sum, we believe that the nature of the apparent violations require the imposition of the respective base monetary forfeiture amounts. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Kevin Hackler is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for violating the provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring licensees to obtain Commission authorization prior to transferring substantial station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001579.doc
      • cases, demonstrate licensee's ``good faith'' effort to comply with Commission rules and justify mitigation). In sum, we believe that the nature of the apparent violation requires the imposition of the base monetary forfeiture amounts. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Kenneth Paul Harris, Sr. is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violating the provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring persons to obtain Commission authorization prior to assuming substantial station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001637.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001637.txt
      • has not demonstrated that its conduct warrants a reduction of its proposed forfeiture. Quite the opposite, WBC's intentional misconduct justifies use of the upward adjustment criteria cited in the NAL. The proposed forfeiture is fully justified and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for violating the terms and conditions of its license and the Commission's rules requiring operation within the parameters set forth in the license, and requiring express permission prior to a permittee's operation or commencement of program tests involving directional
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001640.doc
      • broadcasts the resulting conversation without giving prior notice, Citicasters' actions appear to be directly contrary to the language of the rule, which requires prior notice before a conversation is broadcast. We also find that Citicasters' conduct is inconsistent with the rule's purpose of protecting parties to telephone conversations. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001667.doc
      • authorizations for Stations KNKG512 and KWB377 expired on April 1, 1999. Advanced TelCom did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 11, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $3,000 to Advanced TelCom for the late filing of its license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Advanced TelCom's response to the NAL. In the response, Advanced TelCom asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because Advanced TelCom is a very small business whose revenues are
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001695.doc
      • of its 1997, 1998 and 1999 federal income tax returns. The tax returns indicate that Booth's gross revenues were $35,049 in 1997, $44,935 in 1998 and $56,521 in 1999. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Booth's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001745.doc
      • could not be reasonably viewed as applying to the second stock sale. Accordingly, we do not view the parties' actions in connection with the second stock sale (from Mr. Collins to Mr. Rodgers) as the type of reasonable reliance on staff advice that would make a forfeiture inappropriate. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001746.doc
      • If NATN continues to violate the Commission's universal service rules, such violations could result in future notices of apparent liability proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke NATN's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, North American Telephone Network is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this NOTICE
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001802.doc
      • of those facts and arguments and reduced the proposed forfeiture from $11,000 to $2,000. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, William L. Leavell's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001810.doc
      • for Stations KNKL513, KNKD291 and KNKD302 expired on April 1, 1999. Mr. Sanders did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until July 14, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $6,000 to Mr. Sanders for the late filing of his license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Mr. Sanders' response to the NAL. In the response, Mr. Sanders asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because payment of the proposed forfeiture would impose a severe financial
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001873.doc
      • it requested reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture to $1,000. On March 3, 2000, the Bureau released the Forfeiture Order, which assessed a monetary forfeiture of $5,000 for willful violation of Section 73.1213(b). DISCUSSION 4. The Bureau issued the Forfeiture Order pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001914.doc
      • response on February 22, 2000. 3. In its response to the NAL, PCS Communications raises several issues regarding the Field Office's investigation of Coupe's complaints and alleges that the record is neither accurate nor complete. 4. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and as provided by Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the NAL is warranted. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL issued to PCS Communications, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall by sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001951.doc
      • (February 26, 1999), we believe that Three Eagles can only receive limited credit for its prior record of compliance. Based upon our consideration of the record as a whole, we believe a $6,000 forfeiture is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Three Eagles of Columbus, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001957.doc
      • expand their stations' original 22 dB( V/m interference contours. We find, therefore, that Chadmoore's and PTT Maple's operation from the Clark Tower site was permitted under Section 90.693(b) of the Rules. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504 of the Act and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the proposed forfeitures is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued against Chadmoore and PTT Maple ARE RESCINDED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001971.doc
      • in a forfeiture. Nonetheless, because Diamond apparently believed that American Tower was responsible for responding, and taking into account all the factors required under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we find that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced to $500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Diamond Services Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $500 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Commission's Rules, which requires the recipient of a Notice of Violation to respond in writing within a specific time period. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001994.doc
      • basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. Mr. LaPierre has not provided the necessary proof to evaluate his claim. Indeed, he has provided no information at all regarding his inability to pay. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Richard E. LaPierre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002004.doc
      • Telnet's authorization for Station WSI674 expired on April 1, 1999. Telnet did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until July 2, 1999. On September 10, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $2,000 to Telnet for the late filing of its license renewal application. 5. On November 23, 1999, Telnet filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount based on its financial condition. Though Telnet states that it cannot pay the forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002005.doc
      • Therefore, denial of Joy's petition is warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002041.doc
      • in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired at around 7:30 p.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on August 28, 1999, Station KWGL(FM), violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002055.doc
      • arrangements to paint the tower eventually engaged a second company. By letter dated July 19, 2000, Kona Koast notified the Commission that the tower had been painted and was in compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires that, in examining Kona Koast's response, the Commission take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002090.doc
      • Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules simply prohibits the offering for sale of the linear amplifiers. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, The Two Way Shop's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002130.doc
      • for Stations KCA237, KNKC731, and KNKC816 expired on April 1, 1999. Berkshire did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 24, 1999. On September 9, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $4,500 to Berkshire for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On November 29, 1999, Berkshire filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation of the forfeiture. Berkshire asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because, although the Commission stated that it would send renewal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002145.doc
      • pay the forfeiture. Preliminarily, Vincent Communications limits its documentation to the revenue generated by paging stations KNKK227, KNKK231, and KNKK233. Thus, we have no information about the financial condition of Vincent Communications as a corporate entity. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Vincent Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for violating Section 1.949 of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002164.doc
      • the rule by denying Mr. Huffman access to the public file and by asking him why he wanted access to the file. Furthermore, Riverside also violated Section 73.3526 by failing to place certain materials in the public inspection file, including certain issues/programs lists and EEO Model Program Reports. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002185.doc
      • that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on August 25, 1999, at approximately 1:15 p.m., Station KSJO(FM) violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002186.doc
      • Rcd 3695 (MMB 1990). Because the material aired at around 8:15 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on February 9, 2000, Station KSJO(FM) violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002201.doc
      • that the Commission ``take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.'' 6. We have reviewed the calculation of the forfeiture amount. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement'') sets a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. 7. Taking into account all of the factors set forth in the Policy Statement and Section 503(b) of the Act, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002285.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002285.txt
      • fully considered and rejected in the Forfeiture Order. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, KNFL, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002287.doc
      • of sex with people knowledgeable in the field. See also King Broadcasting Co. (KING-TV), 5 FCC Rcd 2971 (1990) (broadcast of high school sex education class not indecent because material was clinical or instructional). In contrast, the material in this case cannot be said to be clinical or instructional. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002313.doc
      • on the sale, the forfeiture will no longer have an impact upon station operations. After reviewing all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe a $7,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Communicast Consultants, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002314.doc
      • station received the consideration of a ``firm'' concert in return for playing ``On A Day Like Today,'' and since the station did not air sponsorship identification announcements when it played the song, the station apparently violated Section 317 of the Act and Section 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002315.doc
      • appears that the playing of ``On A Day Like Today'' was linked to the consideration the station received from A&M. Since the station did not air sponsorship identification announcements when it played the record, it apparently violated Section 317 of the Act and Section 73.1212 of our rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002334.doc
      • 3. The authorization for Station KNKO605 expired on April 1, 1999. Mills did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until June 28, 1999. On September 20, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $1,500 to Mills for the late filing of its license renewal application. 4. On November 18, 1999, Mills filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount because Mills provides a ``valuable service'' that ``is needed in the community,'' and ``fulfills the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002335.doc
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Econopage is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002358.doc
      • and Bear Valley has the exclusive right to set personnel policies for the station. Mr. Foster appears to have no current role in the station's operation because he is incarcerated. Under these circumstances, Bear Valley appears to have acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002359.doc
      • and Bear Valley has the exclusive right to set personnel policies for the station. Mr. Foster appears to have no current role in the station's operation because he is incarcerated. Under these circumstances, Bear Valley appears to have acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002376.doc
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, US Unwired is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002393.doc
      • Mundo never told Mr. Vazquez-Santos that it intended to record and broadcast the conversation on May 8, 2000 and that it recorded and broadcast this conversation over four stations and on two different occasions. We thus conclude that El Mundo apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00031.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00031.txt
      • facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for rescinding the Amer-I-Net NAL. Further, Amer-I-Net has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $1,360,000 forfeiture penalty for which it is liable. V. ORDERING CLAUSES . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Amer-I-Net Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of one million three hundred sixty thousand dollars ($1,360,000) for violating the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions. Payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00046.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00046.txt
      • circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the LDDI NAL. Further, LDDI has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $2,000,000 forfeiture penalty for which it is liable. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4), that LDDI SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) for violating sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00067.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00067.txt
      • full amount of the proposed forfeiture paid, within 30 days of issuance of the NAL, Get-Aways has neither filed a response nor paid the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $85,500 for violating provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules that prohibit the transmission of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. See 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(a)(3). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00071.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00071.txt
      • it would be inappropriate to reduce the forfeiture. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, after reviewing the information filed by BCI and its response, we find that BCI is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1 million. Ordering clausess Accordingly, it is ORDERED pursuant to section 503 (b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Brittan Communications International, Inc. shall forfeit to the United States government the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258 and section 64.1160 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1160, and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00082.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00082.txt
      • pending; Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 720-27 (1995). Rev. Valentin has not filed for (let alone received) a Commission license. He intentionally broke the law. Therefore, we deny Rev. Valentin's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's NOF. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 1.80 and 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80 and 1.115(g), Rev. Valentin's Application for Review IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rev. Valentin and counsel. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center, (202)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00110.doc
      • 23, 2000 Released: March 29, 2000 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we dismiss in part and deny in part the March 31, 1999 application for review filed by Mark H. Fulling of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, the former Compliance and Information Bureau found Mr. Fulling liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for operation of an unlicensed FM broadcast station, in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the application in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00239.doc
      • mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $2,400,000 forfeiture penalty. Finally, we note that evidence of further violations may lead to institution of a proceeding to revoke BDP's authorization to be a long distance carrier under section 214. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Business Discount Plan, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000) for violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December 1997 to December 1998
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00268.doc
      • for assessing an appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations that were subject to a forfeiture from July 23, 1998 forward. Accordingly, ENSERCH's argument that the NAL violated the statute of limitations is rejected. ENSERCH also argues that the forfeiture exceeds the $82,500 maximum forfeiture for any single action or failure to act. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5)(iii). We reject that argument because each station that ENSERCH transferred without Commission approval constitutes a separate violation of the Act and the Commission's rules. See Courtesy Communications, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 4198, 4200 (1999). The $82,500 statutory maximum represents the maximum forfeiture that can be issued ``for any single act or failure to act described in paragraph (1) of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00275.doc
      • Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 20 unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that US Notary is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $90,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that US Notary, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $90,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00276.doc
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If ATNC continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke ATNC's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, America's Tele-Network Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred fifty-four thousand dollars ($154,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00278.doc
      • of Peace for willful and repeated violations of the main studio rule, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1125. 2. After considering all of the facts and circumstances, we believe the licensee made significant good faith efforts to comply with the main studio rules. We conclude that no sanction should be imposed. See generally The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17101, 17116 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules and accompanying note, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4) (downward adjustment for good faith). 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority granted by section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00347.doc
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: September 14, 2000 Released: September 19, 2000 By the Commission: This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties defined in that section to account for inflation since the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00377.doc
      • within 30 days of issuance of an NAL, Tri-Star failed to respond to an NAL or pay the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 4. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00378.doc
      • evidence, which persuades us not to issue any forfeiture for those alleged violations. Thus, we reduce the proposed $1,000,000 forfeiture penalty to $680,000. We note that evidence of further slamming violations could result in additional enforcement proceedings against Vista. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1100, 64.1150. Payment shall be made
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.txt
      • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01308.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01308.txt
      • application. We have determined that the evidence, although deeply troubling, does not support a finding that SBC apparently engaged in making intentional misrepresentations in violation of section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules in connection with the three reply affidavits.50 With that said, we do conclude that SBC was negligent in collecting the 47 47 U.S.C. � 503(b); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a). 48 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f). 49 See, e.g. Tuscola Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 76 FCC 2d 367, 371 (1980) (applying preponderance of the evidence standard in reviewing Bureau level forfeiture order). Cf. 47 U.S.C. � 312(d) (assigning burden of proof in hearings to Commission). 50 Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Public_Notices/2000/da002383.doc
      • 403. In addition, section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess monetary forfeitures against common carriers of up to one hundred thousand dollars for each violation, or day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of one million dollars for a single act or failure to act. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5) (inflation adjustments to the maximum forfeiture amount). See 47 U.S.C. � 255; 47 C.F.R. �� 6.1 et seq. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov $ $ �����PNG > �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� ��
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1996/fcc96317.pdf
      • barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers. 47 U.S.C � 25. The comment and reply comment deadlines in that proceeding have not yet elapsed. Additionally, in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 96-16 (In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1997/fcc97245.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1997/fcc97245.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1997/fcc97245.wp
      • 47FCCNewsReleaseNo.7033,March6,1997. 48CensusforCommunications'establishmentsareperformedeveryfiveyearsendingwitha"2"or"7".See EconomicsandStatisticsAdministration,BureauofCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,supranote7,atIII. 49Theamountof$10millionwasusedtoestimatethenumberofsmallbusinessestablishmentsbecausethe relevantCensuscategoriesstoppedat$9,999,999andbeganat$10,000,000.Nocategoryfor$10.5millionexisted. Thus,thenumberisasaccurateasitispossibletocalculatewiththeavailableinformation. 50Weusethe77percentfigureofTVstationsoperatingatlessthan$10millionfor1992andapplyittothe 1997totalof1551TVstationstoarriveat1,194stationscategorizedassmallbusinesses. 51 MinorityCommercialBroadcastOwnershipintheUnitedStates,U.S.Dep'tofCommerce,National TelecommunicationsandInformationAdministration,TheMinorityTelecommunicationsDevelopmentProgram ("MTDP")(April1996).MTDPconsidersminorityownershipasownershipofmorethan50%ofabroadcast corporation'sstock,votingcontrolinabroadcastpartnership,orownershipofabroadcastingpropertyasan individualproprietor.Id.TheminoritygroupsincludedinthisreportareBlack,Hispanic,Asian,andNative American. 52 SeeCommentsofAmericanWomeninRadioandTelevision,Inc.inMMDocketNo.94-149andMM DocketNo.91-140,at4n.4(filedMay17,1995),citing1987EconomicCensuses,Women-OwnedBusiness,WB87- 1,U.S.Dep'tofCommerce,BureauoftheCensus,August1990(basedon1987Census).Afterthe1987Census report,theCensusBureaudidnotprovidedatabyparticularcommunicationsservices(four-digitStandardIndustrial Classification(SIC)Code),butratherbythegeneraltwo-digitSICCodeforcommunications(#48).Consequently, since1987,theU.S.CensusBureauhasnotupdateddataonownershipofbroadcastfacilitiesbywomen,nordoes 46 Therearecurrently4,977TVtranslatorstationsand1,952LPTVstationswhichwouldbe affectedbytheallocationpolicyandotherpoliciesinthisproceeding.53TheCommissiondoes notcollectfinancialinformationofanybroadcastfacilityandtheDepartmentofCommercedoes notcollectfinancialinformationonthesebroadcastfacilities.Wewillassumeforpresent purposes,however,thatmostofthesebroadcastfacilities,includingLPTVstations,couldbe classifiedassmallbusinesses.Asindicatedearlier,approximately77percentoftelevision stationsaredesignatedunderthisanalysisaspotentiallysmallbusiness.Giventhis,LPTVand TVtranslatorstationswouldnotlikelyhaverevenuesthatexceedtheSBAmaximumtobe designatedassmallbusinesses. 4.AlternativeClassificationofSmallTelevisionStations Analternativewaytoclassifysmalltelevisionstationsisbythenumberofemployees.The Commissioncurrentlyappliesastandardbasedonthenumberofemployeesinadministeringits EqualEmploymentOpportunity("EEO")ruleforbroadcasting.54Thus,radioortelevision stationswithfewerthanfivefull-timeemployeesareexemptedfromcertainEEOreportingand recordkeepingrequirements.55Weestimatethatthetotalnumberofcommercialtelevision stationswith4orfeweremployeesis132andthatthetotalnumberofnoncommercial educationaltelevisionstationswith4orfeweremployeesis136.56 Wehaveconcludedthatthe746-806MHzbandcanberecoveredimmediately,andthatitis inthepublicinteresttoreallocatethisspectrumtousesinadditiontoTVbroadcasting.We theFCCcollectsuchdata.However,wesoughtcommentonwhethertheAnnualOwnershipReportForm323 shouldbeamendedtoincludeinformationonthegenderandraceofbroadcastlicenseowners.PoliciesandRules RegardingMinorityandFemaleOwnershipofMassMediaFacilities,NoticeofProposedRuleMaking,10FCCRcd 2788,2797(1995). 53FCCNewsReleaseNo.7033,March6,1997. 54TheCommission'sdefinitionofasmallbroadcaststationforpurposesofapplyingitsEEOrulewasadopted priortotherequirementofapprovalbytheSmallBusinessAdministrationpursuanttoSection3(a)oftheSmall BusinessAct,15U.S.C.�632(a),asamendedbySection222oftheSmallBusinessCreditandBusinessOpportunity EnhancementActof1992,Pub.L.No.102-366,�222(b)(1),106Stat.999(1992),asfurtheramendedbytheSmall BusinessAdministrationReauthorizationandAmendmentsActof1994,Pub.L.No.103-403,�301,108Stat.4187 (1994).However,thisdefinitionwasadoptedafterpublicnoticeandanopportunityforcomment.SeeReportand OrderinDocketNo.18244,23FCC2d430(1970). 55See,e.g.,47C.F.R.�73.3612(RequirementtofileannualemploymentreportsonForm395-Bappliesto licenseeswithfiveormorefull-timeemployees);FirstReportandOrderinDocketNo.21474(IntheMatterof AmendmentofBroadcastEqualEmploymentOpportunityRulesandFCCForm395),70FCC2d1466(1979).The CommissioniscurrentlyconsideringhowtodecreasetheadministrativeburdensimposedbytheEEOruleonsmall stationswhilemaintainingtheeffectivenessofourbroadcastEEOenforcement.OrderandNoticeofProposedRule MakinginMMDocketNo.96-16(IntheMatterofStreamliningBroadcastEEORuleandPolicies,Vacatingthe EEOForfeiturePolicyStatementandAmendingSection1.80oftheCommission'sRulestoIncludeEEOForfeiture Guidelines),11FCCRcd5154(1996).Oneoptionunderconsiderationiswhethertodefineasmallstationfor purposesofaffordingsuchreliefasonewithtenorfewerfull-timeemployees.Id.at�21. 56Webasethisestimateonacompilationof1995BroadcastStationAnnualEmploymentReports(FCCForm 395-B),performedbystaffoftheEqualOpportunityEmploymentBranch,MassMediaBureau,FCC. 47 believethatsuchareallocationispossiblewhilecontinuingtoprotectTV.Thereare95full powerTVstations,eitheroperatingorwithapprovedconstructionpermits,inChannel60-69. Therearealsonineproposedstations,andapproximately15stationswillbeaddedduringthe DTVtransitionperiod,foratotalofapproximately119nationwide. Therearealso approximately1,366LPTVstationsandTVtranslatorstationsintheband,operatingona secondarybasistofullpowerTVstations.Weproposetoimmediatelyreallocatethe746-806 MHzbandinordertomaximizethepublicbenefitavailablefromitsuse. TheRFAalsoincludessmallgovernmentalentitiesasapartoftheregulatoryflexibility analysis.57Thedefinitionofasmallgovernmentalentityisonewithapopulationoffewerthan 50,000.58Thereareapproximately85,006governmentalentitiesinthenation.59Thisnumber includessuchentitiesasstates,counties,cities,utilitydistrictsandschooldistricts.Thereare nofiguresavailableonwhatportionofthisnumberhavepopulationsoffewerthan50,000. However,thisnumberincludes38,978counties,citiesandtowns,andofthose,37,566,or96 percent,havepopulationsoffewerthan50,000.60TheCensusBureauestimatesthatthisratio isapproximatelyaccurateforallgovernmentalentities.Thus,oftheapproximately85,006 governmentalentities,weestimatethat96percent,or81,600,aresmallentitiesthatmaybe affectedbyourrules. D. DescriptionofProjectedReporting,RecordkeepingandOtherCompliance Requirements. None. E.SignificantAlternativestoProposedRuleswhichMinimizeSignificantEconomicImpact onSmallEntitiesandAccomplishStatedObjectives. WedonotproposetoprovideLPTVandTVtranslatorstationswiththesameprotection affordedtofull-powerTVstations.Becauseofthelargenumberofsuchstations,protecting themwouldsignificantlydiminishtheutilityofthe746-806MHzbandtobothpublicsafetyand commercialusers.Also,LPTVandTVtranslatorstationsaresecondaryinthisband,andwe haveproposedtomakepublicsafetyandcommercialservicesprimaryintheband.Weremain concerned,however,fortheinterestsofLPTVandTVtranslatorstationsbecausetheyarea valuablepartoftheAmericantelecommunicationsstructureandeconomy.Forthisreason,we seekmeasureswhichwillallowasmanyLPTVandTVtranslatorstationsaspossibletoremain inoperation.Ataminimum,weproposetocontinuethesecondarystatusofthesestations,so thattheywillnotberequiredtochangeorceasetheiroperationsuntiltheyactuallyinterferewith oneofthenewly-allocatedservices.Wealsorequestcommentonanumberofmeasureswhich mayalleviatetheimpactofreallocationofthe746-806MHzbandonLPTVandTVtranslator 575U.S.C.�601(5). 58Id. 591992CensusofGovernments,U.S.BureauoftheCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce. 60Id. 48 stations.Werequestcommentontheseoptions,withemphasisonhowwecanensurefairness toalllicensees,andhowwecanbestbalancetheinterestsofcurrentandfuturelicenseestothe benefitofthepublic. F.FederalRulesthatMayDuplicate,Overlap,orConflictwiththeProposedRules. None. 49
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fc97115a.wp
      • concern"undertheSmallBusinessAct,15U.S.C.�632.Asmallbusinessconcernisone which:(1)isindependentlyownedandoperated;(2)isnotdominantinitsfieldofoperation; and(3)satisfiesanyadditionalcriteriaestablishedbytheSmallBusinessAdministration ("SBA").AccordingtotheSBA'sregulations,entitiesengagedintelevisionbroadcasting StandardIndustrialClassification("SIC")Code4833--TelevisionBroadcastingStations,may haveamaximumof$10.5millioninannualreceiptsinordertoqualifyasasmallbusiness concern.Thisstandardalsoappliesindeterminingwhetheranentityisasmallbusinessfor purposesoftheRFA. Pursuantto5U.S.C.�601(3),thestatutorydefinitionofasmallbusinessapplies "unlessanagencyafterconsultationwiththeOfficeofAdvocacyoftheSBAandafter opportunityforpubliccomment,establishesoneormoredefinitionsofsuchtermwhichare appropriatetotheactivitiesoftheagencyandpublishessuchdefinition(s)intheFederal Register."Whilewetentativelybelievethattheforegoingdefinitionof"smallbusiness" greatlyoverstatesthenumberoftelevisionbroadcaststationsthataresmallbusinessesandis notsuitableforpurposesofdeterminingtheimpactofthenewrulesonsmalltelevision 9Id.atpara.11. 10Id.atparas.80,143. 11FireweedCommunicationsCorporation,"Inre:AllotmentforHomer,Alaska,"filedNov.22,1996(filed inMMDocketNo.87-268). 12SixthReportandOrderat,e.g.,paras.11,34,76,112,142,144;seealsoFifthReportandOrderinthis proceedingatparas.76-91.(TheFifthReportandOrderhasbeenadoptedconcurrentlywiththepresentSixth ReportandOrder.) D-3 stations,wedidnotproposeanalternativedefinitionintheIRFA.13Accordingly,for purposesofthisSixthReportandOrder,weutilizetheSBA'sdefinitionindeterminingthe numberofsmallbusinessestowhichtherulesapply,butwereservetherighttoadoptamore suitabledefinitionof"smallbusiness"asappliedtotelevisionbroadcaststationsandto considerfurthertheissueofthenumberofsmallentitiesthataretelevisionbroadcastersin thefuture.Further,inthisFRFA,wewillidentifythedifferentclassesofsmalltelevision stationsthatmaybeimpactedbytherulesandpoliciesadoptedinthisSixthReportand Order. 2.IssuesinApplyingtheDefinitionofa"SmallBusiness" Asdiscussedbelow,wecouldnotpreciselyapplytheforegoingdefinitionof"small business"indevelopingourestimatesofthenumberofsmallentitiestowhichtheruleswill apply.Ourestimatesreflectourbestjudgmentsbasedonthedataavailabletous. Anelementofthedefinitionof"smallbusiness"isthattheentitynotbedominantinits fieldofoperation.Wewereunableatthistimetodefineorquantifythecriteriathatwould establishwhetheraspecifictelevisionstationisdominantinitsfieldofoperation. Accordingly,thefollowingestimatesofsmallbusinessestowhichthenewruleswillapplydo notexcludeanytelevisionstationfromthedefinitionofasmallbusinessonthisbasisandare thereforeoverinclusivetothatextent.Anadditionalelementofthedefinitionof"small business"isthattheentitymustbeindependentlyownedandoperated.Asdiscussedfurther below,wecouldnotfullyapplythiscriterion,andourestimatesofsmallbusinessestowhich therulesmayapplymaybeoverinclusivetothisextent.TheSBA'sgeneralsizestandards aredevelopedtakingintoaccountthesetwostatutorycriteria.Thisdoesnotprecludeusfrom takingthesefactorsintoaccountinmakingourestimatesofthenumbersofsmallentities. Withrespecttoapplyingtherevenuecap,theSBAhasdefined"annualreceipts" specificallyin13C.F.R�121.104,anditscalculationsincludeanaveragingprocess.Wedo notcurrentlyrequiresubmissionoffinancialdatafromlicenseesthatwecouldusein applyingtheSBA'sdefinitionofasmallbusiness.Thus,forpurposesofestimatingthe numberofsmallentitiestowhichtherulesapply,wearelimitedtoconsideringtherevenue datathatarepubliclyavailable,andtherevenuedataonwhichwerelymaynotcorrespond 13Wehavependingproceedingsseekingcommentonthedefinitionofanddatarelatingtosmallbusinesses. InourNoticeofInquiryinGNDocketNo.96-113(IntheMatterofSection257ProceedingtoIdentifyand EliminateMarketEntryBarriersforSmallBusinesses),FCC96-216,releasedMay21,1996,werequested commenterstoprovideprofiledataaboutsmalltelecommunicationsbusinessesinparticularservices,including television,andthemarketentrybarrierstheyencounter,andwealsosoughtcommentastohowtodefinesmall businessesforpurposesofimplementingSection257oftheTelecommunicationsActof1996,whichrequiresus toidentifymarketentrybarriersandtoprescriberegulationstoeliminatethosebarriers.Additionally,inour OrderandNoticeofProposedRuleMakinginMMDocketNo.96-16(IntheMatterofStreamliningBroadcast EEORuleandPolicies,VacatingtheEEOForfeiturePolicyStatementandAmendingSection1.80ofthe Commission'sRulestoIncludeEEOForfeitureGuidelines),11FCCRcd5154(1996),weinvitedcommentasto whetherreliefshouldbeaffordedtostations:(1)basedonsmallstaffandwhatsizestaffwouldbeconsidered sufficientforrelief,e.g.,10orfewerfull-timeemployees;(2)basedonoperationinasmallmarket;or(3)based onoperationinamarketwithasmallminorityworkforce.Wehavenotconcludedtheforegoingproceedings. D-4 completelywiththeSBAdefinitionofannualreceipts. UnderSBAcriteriafordeterminingannualreceipts,ifaconcernhasacquiredan affiliateorbeenacquiredasanaffiliateduringtheapplicableaveragingperiodfor determiningannualreceipts,theannualreceiptsindeterminingsizestatusincludethereceipts ofbothfirms.13C.F.R.�121.104(d)(1).TheSBAdefinesaffiliationin13C.F.R. �121.103.Inthiscontext,theSBA'sdefinitionofaffiliateisanalogoustoourattribution rules.Generally,undertheSBA'sdefinition,concernsareaffiliatesofeachotherwhenone concerncontrolsorhasthepowertocontroltheother,orathirdpartyorpartiescontrolsor hasthepowertocontrolboth.13C.F.R.�121.103(a)(1).TheSBAconsidersfactorssuch asownership,management,previousrelationshipswithortiestoanotherconcern,and contractualrelationships,indeterminingwhetheraffiliationexists.13C.F.R.�121.103(a)(2). Insteadofmakinganindependentdeterminationofwhethertelevisionstationswereaffiliated basedonSBA'sdefinitions,wereliedonthedatabasesavailabletoustoprovideuswiththat information. 3.TelevisionStationEstimatesBasedonCensusData TheSixthReportandOrderwillaffectfullservicetelevisionstations,TVtranslator facilities,andLPTVstations.TheSmallBusinessAdministrationdefinesatelevision broadcastingstationthathasnomorethan$10.5millioninannualreceiptsasasmall business.14Televisionbroadcastingstationsconsistofestablishmentsprimarilyengagedin broadcastingvisualprogramsbytelevisiontothepublic,exceptcableandotherpaytelevision services.15Includedinthisindustryarecommercial,religious,educational,andother televisionstations.16Alsoincludedareestablishmentsprimarilyengagedintelevision broadcastingandwhichproducetapedtelevisionprogrammaterials.17Separateestablishments primarilyengagedinproducingtapedtelevisionprogrammaterialsareclassifiedunder anotherSICnumber.18 1413C.F.R.�121.201,StandardIndustrialCode(SIC)4833(1996). 15EconomicsandStatisticsAdministration,BureauofCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,1992Census ofTransportation,CommunicationsandUtilities,EstablishmentandFirmSize,SeriesUC92-S-1,AppendixA-9 (1995). 16 Id.SeeExecutiveOfficeofthePresident,OfficeofManagementandBudget,StandardIndustrial ClassificationManual(1987),at283,whichdescribes"TelevisionBroadcastingStations(SICCode4833)as: Establishmentsprimarilyengagedinbroadcastingvisualprogramsbytelevisiontothepublic, exceptcableandotherpaytelevisionservices.Includedinthisindustryarecommercial, religious,educationalandothertelevisionstations.Alsoincludedhereareestablishments primarilyengagedintelevisionbroadcastingandwhichproducetapedtelevisionprogram materials. 17EconomicsandStatisticsAdministration,BureauofCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,supranote7, AppendixA-9. 18Id.;SIC7812(MotionPictureandVideoTapeProduction);SIC7922(TheatricalProducersand MiscellaneousTheatricalServices(producersofliveradioandtelevisionprograms). D-5 Therewere1,509televisionstationsoperatinginthenationin1992.19Thatnumberhas remainedfairlyconstantasindicatedbytheapproximately1,551operatingtelevision broadcastingstationsinthenationasofFebruary28,1997.20For199221thenumberof televisionstationsthatproducedlessthan$10.0millioninrevenuewas1,155establishments, orapproximately77percentofthe1,509establishments.22Thus,theruleswillaffect approximately1,551televisionstations;approximately1,194ofthosestationsareconsidered smallbusinesses.23Theseestimatesmayoverstatethenumberofsmallentitiessincethe revenuefiguresonwhichtheyarebaseddonotincludeoraggregaterevenuesfromnon- televisionaffiliatedcompanies.Werecognizethattherulesmayalsoimpactminorityand womenownedstations,someofwhichmaybesmallentities.In1995,minoritiesownedand controlled37(3.0%)of1,221commercialtelevisionstationsintheUnitedStates.24 AccordingtotheU.S.BureauoftheCensus,in1987womenownedandcontrolled27(1.9%) of1,342commercialandnon-commercialtelevisionstationsintheUnitedStates.25
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.txt
      • radio, or the applicant for authorization of a software defined radio shall submit a copy of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters upon request by the Commission. Failure to comply with such a request within 14 days or such additional time as the Commission may allow may be cause for denial of authorization, forfeiture pursuant to � 1.80 of this chapter, or other administrative sanctions. Section 2.1043 is revised to read as follows: � 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1998/da982400.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1998/da982400.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1998/da982400.wp
      • between its affiliate, Telmex, and U.S. carriers that could explain the significant change in received collect traffic on the U.S.-Mexico route.32 ORDERING CLAUSE 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 214, 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 214, 303(r) and 403, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Telmex/Sprint Communications, L.L.C. (TSC) SHALL SHOW CAUSE within 30 days of the release of this Order why we should not find that it and its affiliate, Tel�fonos de M�xico, S.A. de C.V., have failed to comply with the conditions attached to its Section 214 authorization to provide international switched resale services
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/da992555.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/da992555.txt
      • the section 214 benchmarks condition on the U.S.-Chile route. Therefore, we deny the request for waiver. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4 (j), 5(c), 201, 214 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 214 and 303(r), and Sections 0.51, 0.261, 1.3, 1.80, 63.10 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.51, 0.261, 1.3, 1.80, 63.10, that TLD's petition for waiver of the Section 214 Settlement Rate Condition in the U.S.-Chile route IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rebecca Arbogast Chief, Telecommunications Division International Bureau Telef�nica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico, Inc., Petition
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/1999/pnin9130.pdf
      • - 4200.0000 MHz Page 1 of 14 E980312 SES-ASG-19990629-01090 IMPSAT USA, INC. TO: WORLDSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION IMPSAT USA, INC. FROM: No. of Station(s) listed:1 Application for Consent to Assignment E990301 SES-LIC-19990119-01149 OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY ( d/b/a ACADEMIC TELEVISION SERVICES ) Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service LOCATION: 36 � 53 ' 1.80 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 4300 HAMPTON BLVD., CITY OF NORFOLK, NORFOLK, VA 76 � 18 ' 15.10 " W LONG. 4.8 KPK VERTEX ANTENNA ID:1 4.8 meters 36M0F8W ANALOG, VIDEO/AUDIO 75.00 dBW 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0F8W ANALOG, VIDEO/AUDIO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz E990162 SES-LIC-19990409-00562 DOW CHEMICAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992258.doc
      • date of this Notice of Apparent Liability to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent. See Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules. Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter. Further, you are admonished for your repeated violations of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's Rules. In addition, within 30 days of the date of this letter, you are directed to file with the Secretary of the Commission, attention
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992259.doc
      • date of this Notice of Apparent Liability to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent. See Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules. Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter. In addition, within 30 days of the date of this letter, you are directed to file with the Secretary of the Commission, attention Mass Media Bureau, a plan of action for coming into compliance with Section 310(d) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000268.doc
      • date of this letter "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent . . . ." Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter. Notwithstanding the substantial nature of the violations described here and the severity with which we regard them, we find you qualified to remain a Commission licensee and conclude that grant of your application would
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96335.htm http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96335.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96335.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96335.wp
      • to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers. The comment and reply comment deadlines in that proceeding have not yet elapsed. Additionally, in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 96-16 (In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96493.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96493.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96493.wp
      • of implementing Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires us to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers. Additionally, in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 96-16 (In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992306.doc
      • U.S.C. Sec. 503(b), KXOJ, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) for the willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.1125, as described above. KXOJ, Inc. may take any of the steps outlined in the attachment to this letter regarding payment of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. 10. The Mass Media Bureau will send by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested, copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order to KXOJ, Inc. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau The petition also requests "waiver" of the main studio rule to enable the subject stations to remain outside their
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992342.doc
      • from the date of this Notice "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent." 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80 are summarized in the attachment to this Notice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau Attachment cc: Dennis J. Kelly, Esquire Reconsideration of that decision was denied by letter dated September 9, 1999. Your counsel also submitted a letter dated July 20, 1999. His arguments will be considered in our analysis
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992343.doc
      • from the date of this Notice "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent." 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80 are summarized in the attachment to this Notice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau Attachment cc: Lee J. Peltzman, Esq. As noted herein, an application to assign the station's permit was granted in June 1999. Reconsideration of that decision was denied by letter dated September 9, 1999. Because our records
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da992444.doc
      • date of this letter "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent . . . ." Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter. Notwithstanding the substantial nature of the violations described here and the severity with which we regard them, we find WOLF License Corp. and Pegasus Broadcasting Associates, L.P. qualified to remain Commission licensees and conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99273.doc
      • KRDO-TV subject to reporting conditions and issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for an $11,000 forfeiture for violations of the Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') program requirements of the broadcast EEO Rule. 47 C.F.R. � 73.2080. Pikes Peak did not file a response to the NAL challenging the amount of the forfeiture or the underlying rule violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Rather, Pikes Peak paid the forfeiture in full on May 14, 1997, and complied with the reporting conditions, notwithstanding the fact that it disputed the imposition of the NAL in the cover letter submitted with the forfeiture payment. Pikes Peak requests in its petition that the MO&O be set aside and declared null and void in light of the decision
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99274.doc
      • for an $11,000 forfeiture for violations of the broadcast equal employment opportunity (``EEO'') Rule. Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability in The Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company, 12 FCC Rcd 4626 (1997) (``MO&O''). Pikes Peak did not file a response to the NAL challenging the amount of the forfeiture or the underlying rule violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Rather, Pikes Peak paid the forfeiture in full on May 14, 1997, notwithstanding the fact that it disputed the imposition of the NAL in the cover letter submitted with the forfeiture payment and complied with all reporting conditions. Following the decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99337.doc
      • considered Tri-Valley's response to the NAL, but, nonetheless, issued a Forfeiture Order for a $10,000 forfeiture. Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Forfeiture in Tri-Valley Broadcasters, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 9938 (1997). Tri-Valley did not file a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order challenging the amount of the forfeiture or the underlying rule violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(i). Rather, Tri-Valley paid the forfeiture in full on July 22, 1997. Following the decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1998), petition for reh'g denied, 154 F.3d 487, petition for reh'g en banc denied, 154 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1998), which held that the EEO
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.txt
      • raise an issue as to WQED's continued qualifications, based upon an isolated violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act. While we do not condone violations of our enhanced underwriting requirements by noncommercial stations, an adjudicated violation of Section 399B typically results in the imposition of a fine or admonishment. See, e.g., Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997). Because WQED promptly informed the Commission of its violation, and took immediate remedial steps to ensure that contrasting viewpoints were aired, we will admonish WQED for its violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act, but decline to take other enforcement action against it. We also remind
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000069.doc
      • ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for repeated violations of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �73.670. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission. With regard to this forfeiture proceeding, Chesapeake Television Licensee, Inc. may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sections 303a, 303b and 394. Id. at 5530 n.10. See, e.g., Centennial Communications, Inc. (WGNT(TV), DA 97-197 (MMB 1997); Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001173.doc
      • of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for repeated violations of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �73.670. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission. With regard to this forfeiture proceeding, Spokane Television, Inc. may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sections 303a, 303b and 394. Children's Television Programming, 6 FCC Rcd 5529, 5530 n.10 (1991). See International Broadcasting Corp., 19
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001174.doc
      • thousand, five hundred dollars ($7,500) for repeated violations of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �73.670. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission. With regard to this forfeiture proceeding, Gary M. Cocola may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau See, e.g., Stainless Broadcasting Co. (WICZ-TV), 10 FCC Rcd 9961 (1995); KXRM Partnership (KXRM-TV), 8 FCC Rcd 7890 (1993) (KXRM Partnership). Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat. 996-1000, codified at 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001198.doc
      • dollars ($7,500) for repeated violations of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.670. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission. With regard to this forfeiture proceeding, Second Generation of Iowa, Ltd., may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau cc: David Tillotson, Esq. See, e.g., Stainless Broadcasting Co. (WICZ-TV), 10 FCC Rcd 9961 (1995); KXRM Partnership (KXRM-TV), 8 FCC Rcd 7890 (1993) (KXRM Partnership). Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001199.doc
      • hundred dollars ($7,500) for repeated violations of Section 73.670 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.670. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications Commission. With regard to this forfeiture proceeding, Dubuque TV Limited Partnership, may take any of the actions set forth in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, as summarized in the attachment to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Roy J. Stewart Chief, Mass Media Bureau cc: David Tillotson, Esq. See, e.g., Stainless Broadcasting Co. (WICZ-TV), 10 FCC Rcd 9961 (1995); KXRM Partnership (KXRM-TV), 8 FCC Rcd 7890 (1993) (KXRM Partnership). Pub. L. No. 101-437, 104 Stat.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00008.doc
      • (30) days from the date of this letter "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent." Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's Rules are summarized in the attachment to this letter. This letter was adopted by the Commission on January 10, 2000. BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Enclosure cc w/ encl: David D. Oxenford, Esq. Lauren Lynch Flick, Esq. Along with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00021.doc
      • impose a forfeiture of $35,000 on WQAM License Limited Partnership (``licensee''), licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1464, which prohibits the broadcast of indecent material. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 312(a)(6) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 312(a)(6) and 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(f)(4). 2. By Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL''), FCC 99-187, released July 22, 1999, we determined that certain material apparently broadcast over WQAM on five days in May 1998 was indecent. Inasmuch as the material was apparently aired between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., we concluded that the broadcasts occurred
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00245.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00245.txt
      • to the Fort Lee translator, and that such use was unauthorized by the rule. The ALJ concluded that a $3,000 forfeiture would be the most appropriate sanction for Turro's violation of 47 C.F.R. � 74.531(c), but that assessment of a forfeiture was precluded by the one year statute of limitations contained in 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(1). 82. Based on the results of the field inspections and the other information before the Commission at the time, the HDO raised questions as to whether the Fort Lee translator was receiving the programming airing on WJUX directly from Jukebox Radio's Dumont studio and was not retransmiting WJUX's off-the-air signal, whether intercity relay station WMG-499 was being used to deliver
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00373.doc
      • afforded a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Notice "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent." 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.80(f)(3). 22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Application for Review filed on February 2, 1998, by Emil Antonoff IS DENIED. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Informal Objection filed on February 3, 1998, by Emil Antonoff is DENIED. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Minor Modification Application, File No. BMPH-980728IC, filed by WADO-AM License Corporation on July 28,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Orders/1999/fcc99146.pdf
      • a standard based on the number of employees in administering its Equal Employment Opportunity Rule (EEO) for broadcasting.119 Thus, radio or television stations with fewer than five full-time employees are exempted from certain EEO reporting and record keeping requirements.120 We estimate that the total number of broadcast stations with 4 or Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines), 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), 61 FR 9964 (Mar. 12, 1996). One option under consideration is whether to define a small station for purposes of affording such relief as one with ten or fewer full- time employees. 121 Compilation of 1994 Broadcast Station Annual Employment Reports (FCC Form B), Equal Opportunity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Factsheets/pwlfacts.doc
      • Enforcement Bureau impose a forfeiture for our failure to seek prior FCC consent for assignment and transfer of control of FCC licenses? Failure to seek FCC approval prior to an assignment or transfer of control is a violation of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules and, thus, subjects the parties to possible enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures. Under Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, unauthorized substantial transfers of control carry a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 per violation, while unauthorized pro forma transfers of control carry a base forfeiture amount of $1,000 per violation. These amounts can be adjusted upward or downward based on the applicability of certain criteria. The Commission strongly encourages parties that may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991848.doc
      • be appropriate in this case. IV. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses Based on the foregoing, Hudson's arguments are insufficient to justify reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. The Division further concludes that Hudson is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, County of Hudson, New Jersey, SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and former Section 90.113 of the Commission's Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991905.doc
      • mitigates the amount of the forfeiture. Taking into consideration these and all of the other factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe it appropriate to propose a total forfeiture against OEEC of six thousand dollars ($6,000). IV. Ordering Clauses 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the authority delegated in Section 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, Osborn Entertainment Enterprises Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and former Section 101.53 of the Commission's Rules,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991936.doc
      • WNEP492 and WNEH696 in Metarie and New ) Orleans, Louisiana ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 30, 1999 Released: October 1, 1999 By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. Introduction This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, against Entergy Security Corporation (``Entergy''), operator of Fixed Microwave Service station licenses WNEP492 and WNEH696 at Metarie and New Orleans, Louisiana. We find that Entergy acquired control of these two stations without prior Commission consent, in apparent violation of Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 101.53 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons discussed below,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991989.doc
      • not apply for or obtain Commission consent prior to the transfers of control of its stations to CMP on September 1, 1998. The guidelines contained in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, which became effective on October 14, 1997, give a base forfeiture amount of $1,000 for each unauthorized pro forma transfer of control. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules require us to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." We find the transfers were pro forma in nature. Furthermore, Central Maine voluntarily notified the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992179.doc
      • licensee of record of the subject stations) merged into its parent company (Touch America's predecessor in interest). Touch America concedes that it engaged in such transfers of control without Commission consent. Failure to obtain Commission consent to a transfer of control is a violation for which the Commission has long imposed monetary forfeitures. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules require us to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." In Telecourier Communications Corp., 10 FCC Rcd 10014 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 1995), the Enforcement Division
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992197.doc
      • Commission's Rules provides in pertinent part: ``Stations in the Wireless Radio Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in this title and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission under the provisions of this part . . . .'' Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules further provide that a forfeiture penalty may be assessed against a person who is found to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the Commission's Rules. The Commission has held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if it is a conscious act or omission, whether or not there is any intent to violate the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992198.doc
      • Commission's Rules provides in pertinent part: ``Stations in the Wireless Radio Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in this title and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission under the provisions of this part . . . .'' Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules further provide that a forfeiture penalty may be assessed against a person who is found to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the Commission's Rules. The Commission has held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if it is a conscious act or omission, whether or not there is any intent to violate the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992224.doc
      • Commission; PNI has suffered a significant loss as a result of its error; and PNI has a record of compliance before the Commission. 5. We do not find a basis for reducing or rescinding PNI's forfeiture liability because of its claimed misunderstanding about the scope of the Commission action granting the assignment application. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules state that a licensee that willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's Rules, or fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term "willful" means that the violator knew it
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992424.doc
      • FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal application. months after the authorization for the station had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Brandon Communications, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to counsel
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992425.doc
      • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal application. after the authorization for the station had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Stogner Pumping Service d/b/a Lamesa Paging Service SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992426.doc
      • FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal applications. months after the authorization for the stations had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Berkshire Communicators, Inc., SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to counsel
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992428.doc
      • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: the Commission granted the late-filed renewal applications. after the authorization for the stations had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Vincent Communications, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to counsel
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992429.doc
      • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: the Commission granted the late-filed renewal application. months after the authorization for the stations had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Capitol Radiotelephone Company, Inc., SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992430.doc
      • FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal application. months after the authorization for the station had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Mr. William S. Mills SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992431.doc
      • FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal applications. month after the authorization for the stations had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Page-A-Phone, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Page-A-Phone, Inc.,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992432.doc
      • FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal applications. months after the authorization for the stations had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, D.A. Sanders, SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to D.A. Sanders,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992433.doc
      • FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal applications. months after the authorization for the stations had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Advanced Telecom, Inc., SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Advanced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992434.doc
      • FOR FORFEITURE By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: . the Commission granted the late-filed renewal applications. months after the authorization for the stations had expired, in apparent violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Communications Equipment & Services, Inc., SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992435.doc
      • case, taking into consideration all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including but not limited to Euclid's voluntary disclosure of its violations to the Commission, we believe it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture to $1,500. 5. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Euclid Telecommunications, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,500 for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. . 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Euclid Telecommunications,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992436.doc
      • taking into consideration all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including but not limited to, the Sunbelt's voluntary disclosure of its violations to the Commission, we believe it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture to $1,500. 5. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Sunbelt Transmission Corp., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,500 for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Sunbelt Transmission Corp.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992437.doc
      • the Pampa's voluntary disclosure of its violations to the Commission, we believe it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture to $1,000 per site for the violations at each of the Pampa's two transmission sites, for a total forfeiture of $2,000. 5. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Pampa Communications Center, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Pampa Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992438.doc
      • limited to, Champion's voluntary disclosure of its violations to the Commission, we believe it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture to $1,500 per site for the violations at each of Champion's two transmission sites, for a total forfeiture of $3000. 5. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Champion Communications Services, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3000 for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Champion Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992439.doc
      • to, Snider's voluntary disclosure of its violations to the Commission, we believe it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture to $1,500 per site for the violations at each of the Snider's fourteen transmission sites, for a total forfeiture of $21,000. 5. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Snider Communications Corp., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for its apparent willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Snider Communications Corp.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992440.doc
      • has failed to demonstrate its inability to pay the $8,000 forfeiture. 6. For the reasons stated above, we conclude that Merichem's arguments are insufficient to justify reduction or recession of the forfeiture. Consequently, we conclude that a $8,000 forfeiture is appropriate. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that Merichem SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for repeatedly violating Section 90.113 of the Commission's Rules, now Section 1.903 of the Commission's Rules. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent, by Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested, to Jim M. Hinton, Manager Corporate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992443.doc
      • Long Island City, New York ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 4, 1999 Released: November 4, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. Introduction . This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules against Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. ("Tel-A-Car"), licensee of Specialized Mobile Radio Station WYQ527, Long Island City, New York. For the reasons that follow, we find that Tel-A-Car apparently failed to identify Station WYQ527 during its radio transmissions, in apparent violation of Section 90.425(e)(2) of the Commission's Rules. We conclude that Tel-A-Car is apparently liable for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992460.doc
      • in pertinent part: ``Stations in the Wireless Radio Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in this title and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission under the provisions of this part . . . .'' Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules further provide that a forfeiture penalty may be assessed against a person who is found to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the Commission's Rules. The Commission has held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if it is a conscious act or omission, whether or not there is any intent to violate the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992461.doc
      • to warrant reconsideration of our Forfeiture Order. Therefore, our earlier decision imposing a forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 will be affirmed. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Nevada Wireless on September 7, 1999, IS DENIED. 7. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that Nevada Wireless SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for repeatedly violating Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent, by Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested, to Jim Boyer, President, Nevada Wireless, 593 Overmyer Road, Sparks, Nevada 89431.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992469.doc
      • the Notice of Apparent Liability of Forfeiture released August 2, 1999. We nevertheless admonish Pembina for its unauthorized operation of Station KNAK344 for a period exceeding twelve years and direct Pembina to exercise greater care in the future. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(i) of the Commission's Rules, the monetary forfeiture penalty assessed against Pembina Emergency Services IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pembina Emergency Services IS ADMONISHED for its unauthorized use of Station KNAK344 from May 7, 1986 through November 17, 1998, in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 90.113 of the Commission's Rules.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001134.doc
      • waiver request of Self Communications, Inc., filed May 24, 1999, is GRANTED to the extent stated herein, the five-year progress report filed as Exhibit B to application FCC File No. D126953 IS ACCEPTED, and the license for Call Sign KIVD0006 IS REINSTATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Self Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITRUE in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for its apparent and willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Commission's Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1996/dd960812.html
      • part motion or extension of time. Revised Comment Date (for independent LEC Issues) August 29; Revised Reply Comment Date (for independent LEC ISsues): September 13. Dkt No.: CC- 96-149. Action by Chief, Policy and Planning Division. Adopted: August 9, 1996. by Order. (DA No. 96-1281). CCB STREAMLINING BROADCAST EEO RULE AND POLICIES, VACATING EEO FORFEITURE POLICY STATEMENT AND AMENDING SECTION 1.80 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO INCLUDE EEO FORFEITURE GUIDELINES. Comments Due August 26; replies September 25. Dkt No.: MM- 96-16. Action by Bureau Chief. Adopted: August 9, 1996. by Order. (DA No. 96-1279). MMB Internet URL: [2]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/da961279.txt C.H. PCS, INC. Denied Petition for Waiver of Section 24.711 (a)(2) of the Commission's Rules, requesting that Commission extend the deadline for submission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1996/dd960923.html
      • Table of FM Allotments, to allot Channel 249A at Shell Knob, Missouri; filing window November 4-December 5; terminated proceeding. Dkt No.: MM- 96-138. Action by Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. Adopted: September 13, 1996. by R&O. (DA No. 96-1568). MMB STREAMLINING BROADCAST EEO RULE AND POLICIES, VACATING THE EEO FORFEITURE POLICY STATEMENT AND AMENDING SECTION 1.80 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO INCLUDE EEO FORFEITURE GUIDELINES. Extended the time for filing reply comments to October 25, 1996. Dkt No.: MM- 96-16. Action by Chief, Mass Media Bureau. by Order. (DA No. 96-1594). MMB Internet URL: [14]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/da961594.txt ADDENDA: The following items, released September 19, 1996, did not appear in Digest No. 176: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NEES
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1997/dd970728.html
      • No: 2213. Released: July 28, 1997. OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS REFERENCE OPERATIONS DIVISION PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING FILED. Report No: CW-97-55. Released: July 28, 1997. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE INFORMATION - BROADBAND - MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. Contact: Irene Longin or Irene Griffith at (202) 418-1385. Internet URL: [8]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1997/pnwl7185.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- THE COMMISSION'S FORFEITURE POLICY STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1.80 OF THE RULES TO INCORPORATE THE FORFEITURE GUIDELINES. Adopted an amendment to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to add a note to this rule that incorporates guidelines for assessing forfeitures; adopted, with revisions, the Forfeiture Policy Statement and guidelines that were vacated by the court's decision in United States Telephone Association v. FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1998/dd980128.html
      • --- PRESS STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. Internet URL: [13]http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Ness/States/stsn803.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY IN FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS. Delegated the Director, Legal Services Group, Compliance and Information Bureau, the authority to issue Forfeiture orders in response to replies to Notices of Apparent Liability filed pursuant to Section 1.80(f)(4). Action by Chief, Compliance and Information Bureau. Adopted: January 26, 1998. by Order. (DA No. 98-148). CIB Internet URL: [14]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1998/da980148.txt TCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A TCI OF CENTRAL IOWA, INC. This order DA-97-2705, (released December 29, 1997)(Order) is corrected to add sentences to paragraph 3. Action by Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: January 27, 1998. by Erratum. CSB Internet URL:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1998/dd980226.html
      • for the Bell Atlantic Petition for Relief. Comments Due: April 1, 1998; Reply Comments Due: May 1, 1998. Dkt No.: CC-98-11. Action by Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: February 25, 1998. by Order. (DA No. 98-376). CCB Internet URL: [20]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/da980376.txt STREAMLINING BROADCAST EEO RULE AND POLICIES, VACATING THE EEO FORFEITURE POLICY STATEMENT AND AMENDING SECTION 1.80 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO INCLUDE EEO FORFEITURE GUIDELINES. Adopted the change to the Commission's enforcement of its EEO Rules as to religious broadcasters, as described in this Order and Policy Statement. Dkt No.: MM-96-16. Action by the FCC. Adopted: February 5, 1998. by Order. (FCC No. 98-19). MMB Internet URL: [21]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98019.txt [22][icon bar] References 1. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Tariffs/combined/tt022598.pdf 2. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Actions/ac980226.txt 3.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd991228.html
      • the effectiveness of Tariff FCC No. 11 for one day, set it for investigaiton, consolidated this investigation into the investigation initiated in the Transmittal 790 Suspension Order, and imposed an accounting order. Dkt No.: CC- 95-182. Action by Chief, Competitive Pricing Division. Adopted: December 23, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2971). CCB COMMISSION'S FORFEITURE POLICY STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1.80 OF RULES TO INCORPORATE THE FORFEITURE GUIDELINES. Provided guidance regarding interpretation of the downward adjustment criterion for minor violations. Denied two petitions for reconsideration of interpretation of Section 504(c). Dkt No.: CI- 95-6. Action by the Commission. Adopted: December 21, 1999. by MO&O. (FCC No. 99-407). CIB Internet URL: [10]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Consumer_Information/Orders/1999/fcc9940 7.doc CAVALIER TELEPHONE, LLC V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000421.html
      • Public Utility Commission of Ohio's review of the Settlement Agreement. Action by Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: April 20, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-902). CCB Internet URL: [11]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000902.doc WGUL-FM, INC., RADIO STATION WINV(AM), INVERNESS, FL. Affirmed the imposition of a $7,000 forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules for willful violation of Sections 11.52(d), 11.61(a), and Section 73.3526(c) of the Rules. Action by Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: April 19, 2000. by MO&O. (DA No. 00-897). ENF Internet URL: [12]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000897.doc NORFOLK, VIRGINIA. Proposed amending TV Table by substitution of DTV Channel 40 for DTV Channel 58. Comments Due: June 12, 2000, Reply Comments Due: June
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000919.html
      • Vol. 19, No. 180 September 19,2000 __________________________________________________________________ **Before an entry denotes that the item is part of the FCC's implementation of the 1996 Telecom Act. While we will attempt to flag all Telecom Act-related items, this marking is unofficial and informational only. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NEWS RELEASES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FCC ADJUSTS MAXIMUM FORFEITURE PENALTIES TO REFLECT INFLATION. The FCC amended Section 1.80(b) of its Rules to increase the maximum monetary forfeiture penalties available to the Commission. This action adjusts the maximum forfeiture penalties to account for the growth in the Consumer Price Index since 1995, as required by the Debt Collection Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2461. by MO&O. Action by: the Commission. (FCC No. 00-347) ENF Contact: Richard Welch at (202)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd040618.html
      • Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit __________________________________________________________________ fcclogo Daily Digest Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Vol. 23 No. 114 News media information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 202/418-2555 June 18, 2004 __________________________________________________________________ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NEWS RELEASES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FCC ADJUSTS MAXIMUM FORFEITURE PENALTIES TO REFLECT INFLATION. The FCC amended Section 1.80(b) of its Rules to increase the maximum monetary forfeiture penalties available to it. News Release. News Media Contact: Janice Wise at (202) 418-7450, email: Janice.Wise@fcc.gov EB. Contact Janice Wise at (202) 418-7450 or Kathy Berthot at (202) 418-7454 [1]DOC-248483A1.doc [2]DOC-248483A1.pdf [3]DOC-248483A1.txt FCC PROPOSES TO FINE DIRECTV, INC. $87,500 FOR REPOSITIONING SATELLITE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. The FCC proposed an $87,500 forfeiture against
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2006/dd060621.html
      • [34]DOC-266026A1.txt ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED JUNE 20, 2006, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 118: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING LICENSES, INC. Notified Clear Channel, licensee of Station WRUM(FM), of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $6,000 pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. Action by: Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 06/16/2006 by NALF. (DA No. 06-1286). EB [35]DA-06-1286A1.doc [36]DA-06-1286A1.pdf [37]DA-06-1286A1.txt APPLICATIONS OF NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC., TRANSFEROR, AND NEXTEL WIP CORP. AND SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, TRANSFEREES FOR CONSENT TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF LICENSES AND AUTHORIZATIONS. Granted the applications for the transfer of control of licenses from Nextel
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2007/dd070604.html
      • complaint against the Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 06/01/2007 by MO&O. (DA No. 07-2279). EB [39]DA-07-2279A1.doc [40]DA-07-2279A1.pdf [41]DA-07-2279A1.txt BEHRINGER USA, INC. Imposed a $1,000,000 monetary forfeiture against Behringer USA, Inc. for marketing unauthorized radio frequency equipment. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 05/23/2007 by Forfeiture Order. (FCC No. 07-100). EB [42]FCC-07-100A1.doc [43]FCC-07-100A1.pdf [44]FCC-07-100A1.txt AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1.80(B)(1) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, INCREASE OF FORFEITURE MAXIMA FOR OBSCENE, INDECENT, AND PROFANE BROADCASTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2005. Amended the Commission's Rules to increase the maximum statutory forfeiture amounts for obscene, indecent, and profane broadcast. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 05/17/2007 by ORDER. (FCC No. 07-94). EB [45]FCC-07-94A1.doc [46]FCC-07-94A1.pdf [47]FCC-07-94A1.txt WIRELESS E911 LOCATION ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080616.html
      • [29]DOC-282944A1.pdf [30]DOC-282944A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- MR. RAFAEL G. ADAME, NOTICE OF DEBARMENT. Provided notice to Mr. Rafael G. Adame of his debarment from the schools and libraries program pursuant to Section 54.8 of the Commission's rules. Action by: Deputy Chief, Hearings and Investigations Division, Enforcement Bureau by LETTER. (DA No. 08-1417). EB [31]DA-08-1417A1.doc [32]DA-08-1417A1.pdf [33]DA-08-1417A1.txt AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1.80(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, ADJUSTMENT OF FORFEITURE MAXIMA TO REFLECT INFLATION. Amended Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's rules to increase the maximum forfeiture penalties established in that section to account for inflation since the last adjustment to these penalities. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 06/13/2008 by ORDER. (FCC No. 08-154). EB [34]FCC-08-154A1.doc [35]FCC-08-154A1.pdf [36]FCC-08-154A1.txt ORBIT ACT REPORT. FCC Report to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd081020.html
      • structure's lights at least once each 24 hours, either visually or by observing an automatic indicator designed to register any failure. Action by: Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 10/16/2008 by Forfeiture Order. (DA No. 08-2306). EB [24]DA-08-2306A1.doc [25]DA-08-2306A1.pdf [26]DA-08-2306A1.txt MR. LUIS A. MEIJA AND MSG RADIO, INC. Issued a $3,000 forfeiture to each for violation of Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules for failure to provide required information on their application for the assignment of license of station WIAC-FM, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Action by: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 10/18/2008 by Forfeiture Order. (DA No. 08-2315). MB [27]DA-08-2315A1.doc [28]DA-08-2315A1.pdf [29]DA-08-2315A1.txt * * * * * ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED OCTOBER 17, 2008, DID NOT APPEAR
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Document_Indexes/Enforcement/2000_index_EB_Order.html
      • for pag 09/22/2000 [219]DA-00-2145A1.doc [220]DA-00-2145A1.pdf [221]DA-00-2145A1.txt DA-00-2143 EZ SACRAMENTO, INC./INFINITY BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C. Denied the petition for reconsideration of forfeiture orders filed September 20, 1999 by EZ Sacrame 09/21/2000 [222]DA-00-2143A1.doc [223]DA-00-2143A1.pdf [224]DA-00-2143A1.txt DA-00-2139 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION V. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. Dismissed with prejudice Virginia's complaints against MCI 09/20/2000 [225]DA-00-2139A1.doc [226]DA-00-2139A1.pdf [227]DA-00-2139A1.txt FCC-00-347 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1.80(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation 09/19/2000 [228]FCC-00-347A1.doc [229]FCC-00-347A1.pdf [230]FCC-00-347A1.txt DA-00-2130 BERKSHIRE COMMUNICATORS, INC./LICENSEE OF STATIONS KCA237, KNKC731 AND KNKC816. Issued a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) against Be 09/19/2000 [231]DA-00-2130A1.doc [232]DA-00-2130A1.pdf [233]DA-00-2130A1.txt DA-00-2135 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. Granted Joint Motion to Dismiss With
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Document_Indexes/Enforcement/2004_index_EB_Order.html
      • [864]DA-04-1514A1.txt DA-04-1749 APCC SERVICES, INC. ET AL. V. TELSTAR INTERNATIONAL, INC. Granted the request for an extension of time for the complainants to file a formal complaint 06/21/2004 [865]DA-04-1749A1.doc [866]DA-04-1749A1.pdf [867]DA-04-1749A1.txt DA-04-1732 RADIO 810 NASHVILLE, LIMITED. Granted in part and denied in part the Petition for Reconsideration and reduced the forfeiture amoun 06/21/2004 [868]DA-04-1732A1.doc [869]DA-04-1732A1.pdf [870]DA-04-1732A1.txt FCC-04-139 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1.80 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, ADJUSTMENT OF FORFEITURE MAXIMA TO REFLECT INFLATION. Amended Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules to increase the maximum penalties established in t 06/18/2004 [871]FCC-04-139A1.doc [872]FCC-04-139A1.pdf [873]FCC-04-139A1.txt DA-04-1720 NEW YORK RADIO SERVICE. Issued a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $3,200 to New York Radio Service for operating radio t 06/18/2004 [874]DA-04-1720A1.doc [875]DA-04-1720A1.pdf [876]DA-04-1720A1.txt DA-04-1687 ENGLISH SPORTS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/2001/sthfr114.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/2001/sthfr114.html http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/2001/sthfr114.txt
      • �534(b)(9)(``A cable operator shall provide written notice to a local commercial television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or repositioning that station. No deletion or repositioning of a local commercial television station shall occur during a period in which major television ratings services measure the size of audiences of local television stations.'' See 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f). News media Information 202 / 418-0500 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20554 This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974). NEWS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/DA-11-992-attachment-A.pdf
      • The Matter of Applications For Consent to The Transfer of Control of Licenses, Mediaone Group, Inc., to AT&T Corp. MB RM-10763 View RM-10763edocs: RM-10763 8/11/2003 111/26/2002Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB PRM02MM View PRM02MMedocs: PRM02MM 1/8/2002 6411/27/2002Mass Media Bureau Petitions For Rulemaking Filed In 2002. MM 96-16 View 96-16 edocs: 96-16 2/14/1996 24512/6/2002Eeo Streamlining Proposals, And Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules MB 02-321 View 02-321 edocs: 02-321 10/11/2002 41/15/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB 02-349 View 02-349 edocs: 02-349 11/6/2002 31/21/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB RM-10758 View RM-10758edocs: RM-10758 7/31/2003 11/22/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB RM-10626 View RM-10626edocs: RM-10626 12/30/2002 31/24/2003Amendment of FM Table of Allotments MB 02-125 View 02-125 edocs: 02-125
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237586A1.html
      • 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.4(a), 17.48(a) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to register his tower with the Commission, failing to notify the FAA of improperly functioning tower lights, and failing to repaint the tower as often as necessary in order to maintain good visibility to air navigation. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for prescribed lighting and painting at ten thousand dollars ($10,000), and for failure to file required forms at three thousand dollars ($3,000).5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237589A1.html
      • and on March 18, 2000 for violation of Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. However, Statcom has not taken effective measures to avoid causing harmful co-channel interference to stations WPBV410 and WPDU414. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Statcom willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for causing harmful interference at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237590A1.html
      • who willfully8 and repeatedly9 fails to comply with the terms and conditions of his license or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based on the above evidence, we find that Morradio willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1690(b), 73.3538(a)(4) and 11.35(a)10 of the Commission's rules. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $4,000 for the construction and operation at an unauthorized location and $8,000 for the failure to have EAS equipment installed.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237591A1.html
      • willfully9 and repeatedly10 fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based on the above evidence, we find that Skywave willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Act, Sections 302 and 2.907 of the Commission's rules11. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $7,000 for the manufacture and distribution of non-compliance Part 15 devices. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237594A1.html
      • registered with the Commission prior to July 1, 1998. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that La Favorita willfully2 violated Sections 1.89(b) and 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to respond to a Notice of Violation and failing to register the antenna structure for radio station WAOS. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to reply to a Notice of Violation at four thousand dollars ($4000) and for failure to file required forms at three thousand dollars ($3,000).3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237596A1.html
      • U.S.C. 503(b)(1),9 provides that any person who willfully10 and repeatedly11 fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based on the above evidence, we find that Morrison did willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Act.12. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $2,000 for the marketing of non-compliance Part 15 devices. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237597A1.html
      • File No. 99-HU-039 Licensee of Amateur Radio Station N5WLY ) Houston, TX ) NAL/Acct.No. X3254-001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Released: January 13, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau, Houston Office: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act''),1 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,2 against Robert L. Meyers (``Meyers''), licensee of Amateur Radio Station N5WLY, Houston, Texas. We find that Meyers operated his Amateur Radio station so as to willfully and maliciously cause interference to radio communications in apparent willful violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act3 and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules,4 and transmitted unidentified communications in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237600A1.html
      • File No. 99-HU-077 Licensee of Amateur Radio Station K4TOF ) Houston, TX ) NAL/Acct.No. X3254-002 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Released: January 13, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau, Houston Office: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Communications Act''),1 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,2 against Paul E. Holcombe (``Holcombe''), licensee of Amateur Radio Station K4TOF, Houston, Texas. We find that Holcombe operated his Amateur Radio station so as to willfully and maliciously cause interference to radio communications in apparent willful violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act3 and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules,4 and transmitted unidentified communications in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237601A1.html
      • radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. We also find that on March 15 and October 26, 1999, Leonard D. Martin repeatedly and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow an inspection of his radio station upon reasonable request by an authorized Commission representative. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $10,000 for unlicensed operation and $7000 for failure to allow inspection.7 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237602A1.html
      • dated in calendar year 1993. The FCC named this as one of the violations's specified in the NOV issued to Bronco on April 1, 1999. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bronco willfully6 and/or repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.61(a), 73.62(b)(3) and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records pertaining the reasons why EAS tests are not being received is $1,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required field intensity measurements as often as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237603A1.html
      • the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 8, 2000, Nextel Communications, Inc., willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237604A1.html
      • the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 16, 2000, Nextel Communications, Inc., willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237605A1.html
      • the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license.2 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 13, 2000, Nextel Communications, Inc., willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237606A1.html
      • Inc., Radio Station WINV(AM) Inverness, FL, DA 00?897 (EB April 21, 2000) ($7000 forfeiture assessed for, among other things, violation of 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3526). 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Church Point willfully6 and/or repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a)(2), 73.49, and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structures (failure to file required forms) is $3,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective antenna tower fence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237607A1.html
      • vessel TOMCAT. In addition, this warning letter included a listing of properly authorized frequencies for use by ship and private coast stations. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 10, 2000, GNOTS willfully2 violated Section 80.373(f) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on a frequency that was not authorized. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures, the base forfeiture amount for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237610A1.html
      • Florida 32084 ) Case No. 99TP114 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 4, 2000 Released: January 4, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Tampa District Office I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for monetary forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, to Betty's Communications Companies, Inc., licensee of AM Broadcast Station WKLN, for willful and repeated violation of the Terms of Station Authorization for operating at night without authorization and Section 73.1560(a)(1), of the Rules 47 C.F.R. 73.560(a)(1) for using a power level in excess of its authorized power. 2. The appropriate amount of forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237611A1.html
      • FL 32805 ) Case No. 99TP335 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 24, 2000 Released: January 24, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Tampa District Office I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for monetary forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, to Mr. Jean R. Jonassaint for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act for operating a broadcast station without a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2. The appropriate amount of forfeiture for this violation is determined to be $11,000.00. II. BACKGROUND 3. On March 24, 1999, the FCC
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237612A1.html
      • around their antenna. 8. We reject the statement of Reier Broadcasting Company, Inc., that the fencing was substantial. The rules clearly state that the antenna must be enclosed and a visual inspection indicated that a major portion of the fence was lying on the ground. 9. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act2 and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules3, which both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew the requirement of the Commission's rule, but did not take corrective action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237638A1.html
      • willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Additionally, we find that Pilgrim failed to maintain the required management and staff presence at station KWYD from July 15, 2001, to August 22, 2001, in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),9 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture is $8,000 for not having operational EAS equipment in violation of Section 11.35,11 $4,000 for exceeding power limits at nighttime in violation of Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules;12 and $7,000 for failing to maintain the required main studio
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237639A1.html
      • at least once a week at random days and times.10 Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arnold Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61 of the Commission's Rules by failing to receive and transmit the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. 9. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),11 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,12 for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000 and for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's Rules requiring the monitoring, receipt and transmission of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237640A1.html
      • radio frequency radiation exposure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pilgrim, licensee of station KDMN, failed to enclose the AM transmission system with an effective locked fence or other enclosure in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),5 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,6 for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237647A1.html
      • public inspection file be maintained at the main studio of the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Trade Center Management, Inc., willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain the required public inspection file at the KHRA main studio. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237648A1.html
      • the antenna structure that may exceed the Commission's maximum permissible exposure guidelines. Effective base fencing is thus important to prevent possible contact with the radiating structure and excessive radio frequency radiation exposure. 10. Failure to properly maintain required antenna structure marking and failure to properly maintain effective base fencing may result in imposition of a monetary forfeiture, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules. Capstar must respond in writing with a statement of corrective action taken, or to be taken, to ensure ASR number 1018351 is in full compliance with the antenna structure marking and base fencing Rules. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237649A1.html
      • the required material, including commercial records for children's programming, proof of performance test data, signal leakage logs and repair records, and records of attributable interests in video programming. Based on the evidence before us, we find that TWC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1700(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain the required public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000.7 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237652A1.html
      • conduct the weekly review of the station's log. 10. Based on the evidence, we find that HBC willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to comply with EAS testing and logging requirements. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),13 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237658A1.html
      • times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WJOL did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237659A1.html
      • times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WBVS did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237660A1.html
      • ) Culpeper, VA ) NAL/Acct. No. X3234001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 7, 2000 Released: February 7, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Columbia Office I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for monetary forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules"), 47 C.F.R. 1.80, to Culpeper Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of WCVA, Culpeper, Virginia for willful violation of Sections 73.49 and 73.1560(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.49, failure to maintain effective locked fence around the base of each antenna having radio frequency potential at the base, and 73.1560(a), failure to maintain power within 90% to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237662A1.html
      • Manual, letters and comments from the public, and the Issues and Programs Lists. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Metropolitan willfully7 violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the station's main studio and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,8 the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237663A1.html
      • current ownership report, requests from candidates for political office, and the Issues/Programs Lists. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Greenwood willfully2 violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing its antenna tower, and failing to maintain all required material in its public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for violations concerning AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237673A1.html
      • Commission. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2002 Mountain Union failed to post the ASR number for the tower number 1014930, and failed to timely notify the Commission of the change in ownership of the structure in willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.57 of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number is $2,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237674A1.html
      • excessive radio frequency radiation exposure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 21, 2002, Radio Bonners Ferry, Inc., willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around their antenna structure. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),4 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,5 for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237675A1.html
      • a power amplifier and that use of a power amplifier voids authority to operate the station. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Spiry willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a station without a proper license. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,8 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237676A1.html
      • be made available for inspection upon request by an authorized FCC representative. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Woods willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act5 and Section 95.426 (CB Rule 26) of the Rules6 by refusing to allow inspection. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),7 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,9 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237679A1.html
      • WOOO ) Shelbyville, Indiana ) NAL/Acct. No. X3232-001 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 8, 2000 Released: February 8, 2000 By the Enforcement Bureau: Chicago Office I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. 1.80, for willful and repeated failure to maintain effective locked fences around the base of each antenna having radio frequency potential at the base. We conclude that ARS Broadcasting Corp. is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000). II. BACKGROUND 2. ARS Broadcasting Corp. is the licensee
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237680A1.html
      • times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WLLI-FM did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237681A1.html
      • times. During the December 21, 1999 inspection, the agent found that WJTW did not transmit and log its weekly random EAS tests as noted in paragraph 2(b). 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pride Radio willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237710A1.html
      • is required. HCI's structure required painting, but from March 19, 1999 to August 20, 2002, HCI failed to repaint it to maintain good visibility. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find HCI willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237715A1.html
      • for the structure's marking and lighting.3 On September 10 and 11, 2002, Three Angels' antenna structure was not painted. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Three Angels willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission and by failing to mark (paint) the structure. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to mark an antenna structure is $10,000, and for failure to register an antenna structure is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237718A1.html
      • On August 7, 2002, agents found the fence completely down around the base of the antenna structure, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find WCVC, Inc., willfully2 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237719A1.html
      • structure 1233515 in accordance with its registration requirements. M/A had made no report of the light outage to the FAA.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 6 and August 7, 2002, M/A willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1233515. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237720A1.html
      • structure's ASR, and FCC rules.3 On August 5, 2002, the paint on two-thirds of the structure was obstructed by cables attached to the structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Holladay Broadcasting Company, Inc. willfully4 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237721A1.html
      • On July 26, 2002, C. Elton Crews, Inc. failed to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on structure #1204823 in accordance with its registration requirements. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find C. Elton Crews, Inc. willfully2 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required tower lights on its antenna structure #1204823. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237722A1.html
      • 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Westshore willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 17.51, 17.57, and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to: display all red obstruction tower lighting from sunset to sunrise, update tower ownership information on the antenna structure registration, and provide an effective locked fence around the base of the antenna. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this Notice are: $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed tower painting and marking; $3,000 for failure to notify the Commission of a change in tower ownership (failure to file required forms or information); and $7,000 for AM tower fencing. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237723A1.html
      • license. On August 8, 2002, Ian R Walker operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 95.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 8, 2002, Ian R Walker willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237724A1.html
      • operating the unlicensed station for at least three months prior to that date. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 16, 2002, and for at least three months prior to this date, Assondieu Fortune repeatedly3 and willfully4 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237725A1.html
      • with a license. On July 16, 2002, Jhony Desinor operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 105.9 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 16, 2002, Jhony Desinor willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237730A1.html
      • 16, 1996 through September 12, 2002, B&H owned an antenna structure that required notice to the FAA, and thus required Commission registration, yet B&H failed to register the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find B&H willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237731A1.html
      • with a license. On August 6, 2002, Gabriel Dorcely operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 103.9 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 6, 2002, Gabriel Dorcely willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237732A1.html
      • Florida. In addition, WELE failed to immediately notify the FAA of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find WELE willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on antenna structure 1062835 in Ormond Beach, Florida. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237733A1.html
      • within 15 minutes of receipt by broadcast stations. Radio Station WWAB, Inc. failed to conduct required monthly EAS tests between March and July, 2002. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Radio Station WWAB, Inc. repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 6. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules4 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.5 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237734A1.html
      • license. On September 11, 2002, Timothy J. Massett operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 11, 2002, Timothy J. Massett willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237747A1.html
      • of unpainted cabling attached to two faces of the structure. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Verizon willfully and repeatedly violated sections 17.23 and 17.50 by failing to paint the cabling and conduit mounted to the exterior faces of the tower. 6. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,8 which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237761A1.html
      • contained no entries explaining why the tests were not conducted or that the EAS equipment had been taken out of service for repair. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mediacom willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment from January, 2002 until September 12, 2002. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237762A1.html
      • 2002 election even though the station manager stated that the station had aired political advertising. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KLNG willfully5 violated Sections 11.61(a) and 73.3526(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules by failing to conduct required EAS tests and failing to maintain copies of requests for political advertising in the public file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000 per violation. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine what an appropriate forfeiture amount should be for this violation.7 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237763A1.html
      • to immediately notify the FAA of the light outage after being informed of the outage on September 10, 2002.2 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Sedalia Smiles willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting from at least September 10, 2002, until September 17, 2002. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237764A1.html
      • and sunrise. In addition, AAT failed to monitor the condition of its antenna structure's lights,2 and failed to notify the FAA of the improper functioning of these lights.3 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find AAT Communications Corporations willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237765A1.html
      • even though the station had been owned by Petracom for at least two years. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Petracom willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly EAS tests and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.6 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other required
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237766A1.html
      • causing the structure to have an overall dark appearance. As a result of the black cabling, the structure was not clearly visible. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find SBA Towers, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint its antenna structure as necessary to maintain good visibility. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237775A1.html
      • 2002, one of WMLT's antenna towers was not enclosed within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 27, 2002, State Broadcasting Corporation willfully2 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around their antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237776A1.html
      • license. WMTN operated with daytime power on July 30 and July 31, 2002 during nighttime hours until 11:00 pm EDT. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 30 and 31, 2002, Horne Radio, LLC willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to reduce power at sunset. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, 4 the base forfeiture amounts for failing to reduce power (exceeding power limits) is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237777A1.html
      • structure had deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to air navigation due to the poor visibility of the tower. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Fun Media Group, Inc. willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237778A1.html
      • below 64. On October 30, 2002, STC's cable system in Cornersville, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 68.7. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on October 30, 2002, Small Town Communications Partners I LP willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237794A1.html
      • the structure's lighting.6 On August 28 and 29, 2002, Entergy failed to exhibit the top red obstruction lighting on its antenna structure number 1020649. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Entergy willfully7 and repeatedly8 violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit the prescribed tower lighting on antenna structure number 1020649. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237820A1.html
      • the station is in operation. At the time of inspection, Floyd County Broadcasting failed to have Emergency Alert System equipment installed and operating. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Floyd County Broadcasting willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35(a) by failing to install and maintain operational EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for EAS equipment not installed or operational. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237821A1.html
      • that CenturyTel has willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 303(q) of the Act, as amended, by failure to maintain the prescribed illumination of its antenna tower; Section 17.48(a) for failing to report the tower light outage to the FAA; and Section 17.51(b) for failing to continuously exhibit medium or high intensity lighting. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking; and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information.6 In accessing the monetary
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237822A1.html
      • 73.1225(d)(1), and 73.1870(b)(3) for failure to maintain required records; Section 73.1350(c)(1) for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring regarding operating power and AM mode of operation; and Sections 73.1560(a)(1) and 73.1745 for operating with power in excess of 105% of the authorized power during daytime and nighttime operation. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (?Forfeiture Policy Statement?)3, sets the base forfeiture amount at $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications, $1,000 for failing to maintain required records, $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring, and $4,000 for exceeding power
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237826A1.html
      • Island City, NY 11102. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that All American Citywide Rainbow Transit, Inc. operated radio transmitting equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 155.265 MHz on July 8, 2002 and July 16, 2002, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237827A1.html
      • units on a frequency of 35.80 MHz. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Acapulco Car Service, Inc. operated mobile units on July 9, 2002, and July 10, 2002, on an unauthorized frequency of 36.50 MHz, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237828A1.html
      • with a license granted under the provisions of the Act. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 1, July 3, and July 9, 2002, International Car Service, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without a license. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237829A1.html
      • frequency of 31.90 MHz. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, New Eastern Car & Limo Service, operated radio transmitting equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 31.90 MHz on August 20, 2002 and August 21, 2002, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237830A1.html
      • Newark, NJ. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, ServisAir, operated a repeater station on 461.050 MHz and portable radio transmitting equipment on 466.050 MHz on August 23, 2002, August 26, 2002, and August 28, 2002, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237831A1.html
      • the frequency 151.245 MHz in Paterson, NJ. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that J Transport, Inc. operated radio transmission equipment on 151.245 MHz on August 15, 2002 and August 16, 2002 without a Commission authorization in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237832A1.html
      • authorization to operate this station on the frequency 467.250 MHz in Jersey City, NJ. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Ridge operated radio transmission equipment on 467.250 MHz on August 28, 2002 without a Commission authorization in willful2 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,4 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237833A1.html
      • to conduct the required monthly EAS tests from March 3, 2002 to July 3, 2002, and failed to maintain station records of required weekly and monthly EAS tests received from April 13, 2002 to July 3, 2002, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Sections 11.61(a)(1)(iii) and 11.61(b) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring of EAS tests at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237852A1.html
      • part. On August 15, 2002 and August 28, 2002, Tekk operated a transmitter on the frequency 464.375 MHz at the unauthorized location of 1277 Sykes Lane, Williamstown, New Jersey. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tekk Comm Communications willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station at an unauthorized location at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237853A1.html
      • the frequency 462.200 MHz. Horizon also agreed to take corrective actions to transmit the call sign identification on the radio transmitting equipment of Lower Eastside Car Service and Eastland Car Service. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Horizon willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for Horizon' operation of each station at an unauthorized location at $4,000 and for its failure to transmit the call sign identification on each station at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237854A1.html
      • authorization. On April 26, 2002 and July 8, 2002, Minority Business operated WYGG with an antenna height that exceeded the station's authorized antenna height by 29.9 meters. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Minority Business apparently willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and operate EAS equipment at $8,000, and for exceeding the authorized antenna height at $5000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237872A1.html
      • the tower paint was faded and oxidized such that it failed to provide good visibility. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 14, 2002, Gold Coast willfully violated Section 17.50 of the Rules. Gold Coast failed to clean or repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237873A1.html
      • visually or by observing an automatic properly maintained indicator designed to register any failure of such lights; by failing to report the flashing obstruction lighting outage to the FAA, and by failing to update the antenna tower registration to reflect the change in ownership. 12. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules6, for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000, for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000, and for failure to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237874A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 12, 2002, Rotijefco willfully violated Section 11.35 of the Commission's Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operation for over 60 days and failing to log EAS equipment malfunctions and repairs. 6. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),9 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,10 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,11 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237875A1.html
      • 2002, Pacific willfully violated Section 11.61 of the Commission's Rules by failing to monitor the LP1 and LP2 stations as designated in the EAS Local Area Plan for Santa Barbara County and failing to receive or retransmit the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. 6. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,11 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring the monitoring, receipt and retransmission of the required monthly and weekly EAS tests from the designated
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237876A1.html
      • are in operation." Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 13, 2002, Smith willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to have EAS equipment operational at station KEYT(AM) so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available. 6. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,9 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,10 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237877A1.html
      • by Sutro Corporation c/o John H. Runkle requires registration, yet is unregistered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sutro Corporation c/o John H. Runkle willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register the antenna structure. 8. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 for failure to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237878A1.html
      • and by failing to conduct the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. We further find that station KZUA failed to conduct its responsibilities as a designated second local primary station to coordinate the carriage of common emergency messages, provide a local EAS monitoring source, and transmit monthly EAS tests. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement),12 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,13 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237879A1.html
      • January 30, 2002, Mr. William Wayne willfully violated Section 301 of the Act2 and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules3, by failing to obtain prior Commission approval to operate paging station WNGS721 at a new location, known as the Island Inn Hotel, 1300 W. McCulloch Blvd., Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,10 the base forfeiture amount for constructing and operating a radio station at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237880A1.html
      • us, we find that Blue Skies Broadcasting Corp., willfully violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61, and 73.1125(c) of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed and operational and failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests, and by failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,14 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for not maintaining a main studio is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237883A1.html
      • the WDOG broadcast station license. Therefore, Good Radio's antenna structure required Commission registration. As of September 19, 2002, Good Radio failed to register its antenna structure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Good Radio willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237884A1.html
      • until October 1, 2002, WAXO's antenna tower was not enclosed within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Marshall County Radio Corp. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around its antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000.4 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237886A1.html
      • in height.2 Therefore, NRS's antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least April 7, 1999, to November 4, 2002, NRS failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find NRS willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237887A1.html
      • between sunset and sunrise. In addition, Gresham failed to notify the FAA of the light outage.3 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gresham willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission and failing to exhibit required antenna structure lighting. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,6 the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this NAL are $3,000 for failure to register an antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 requires us to take into account ``... the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237888A1.html
      • height.9 Yet Piedmont Radio Co. failed to register the structure. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Piedmont Radio Co. willfully10 and repeatedly11 violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WPID(AM) during normal business hours and failing to register its antenna structure. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,12 the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000 and failing to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237889A1.html
      • EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Small Town Radio willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 73.49 and 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of the station's antenna tower and by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of the antenna structure is $7,000 and for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237890A1.html
      • acquired ownership of these two towers on February 8, 2002, yet, as of July 31, 2002, Verizon had failed to notify the Commission of the change in ownership. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Verizon willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to report changes in antenna structure ownership. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000 for each violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237891A1.html
      • owner. Therefore, Georgia Transmission's antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least July 24 to September 24, 2002, Georgia Transmission failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Georgia Transmission willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237903A1.html
      • establish monitoring procedures to insure compliance with the authorized operating power and AM mode of operation. In addition, we find Clarke willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain proper operating power and mode of operation. 12. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and for failure to provide adequate transmitter control is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237904A1.html
      • We also find that Suh violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules byit failing to post the ASR numbers at the each antenna structures for both station KSUH and station KWYZ, and failing to maintain good visibility of the KSUH an antenna structure. 12. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')9, and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting or marking (painting) is $10,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237905A1.html
      • file was being maintained at the station's Portland, Maine office. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FNX willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 73.1125, and 73.3526(b) of the rules by failing to staff the main studio, and failing to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for failure to staff the main studio, and the base amount at $10,000 for failure to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237906A1.html
      • file was being maintained at the station's Portland, Maine office. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FNX willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 73.1125, and 73.3526(b) of the rules by failing to staff the main studio, and failing to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for failure to staff the main studio, and the base amount at $10,000 for failure to maintain the public inspection file at the main studio. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237909A1.html
      • part of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations are in operation. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RLP willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the rules by failing to have an operational EAS system. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $8000 for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237910A1.html
      • tests or notifications. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 10, 2002, Arrow Communications of N.Y. Inc. willfully3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment, and failure to determine the cause of failure to receive required EAS tests or notifications. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment installed at $8000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237911A1.html
      • time of inspection, CCB's tower paint visibility had deteriorated over time to the point of being a hazard to air navigation. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CCB willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.50 of the rules by failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237915A1.html
      • Rules specifies that antenna structures assigned painting or lighting requirements prior to July 1, 1996, were to have been registered prior to July 1, 1998. Meade did not register their structure until after receiving the NOV. 5. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act5 and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules.6 6. Based on the evidence before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237919A1.html
      • before us, we find that Grass Roots willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17(4)(a), 17.50, and 73,1125(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, by failing to paint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility, and by failing to equip and staff a main studio. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')6, sets the base forfeiture amounts at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information (e.g. failure to register the antenna structure), $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking, and $7,000 for violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237920A1.html
      • to conduct weekly EAS tests during the period June18, 2002 to August 13, 2002, and Sections 17.4, 73.49 and 73,3526(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, failing to enclose the antenna structure in an effective locked fence and failing to provide access to the public inspection file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amounts at $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring (e.g. failure to conduct weekly EAS tests), $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information (e.g. failure to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237957A1.html
      • structure's paint. As a result of the faded paint and black cabling, the structure was not clearly visible. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find KN Telecommunications, Inc. willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1016749. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failing to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237958A1.html
      • In addition, Southwestern Bell Wireless, LLC failed to inspect its antenna structure lights and associated control equipment in that the structure's automatic alarm system failed.3 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Southwestern Bell Wireless, LLC willfully4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit all required medium intensity obstruction lighting. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237959A1.html
      • antenna structure registration and FAA requirements. Additionally, Wichita had not filed a report of a light outage on this structure with the FAA. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Wichita SMSA Tower Holdings, LLC willfully4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required tower lights on its antenna structure 1032091. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237960A1.html
      • of at least 320 feet, yet no lighting had been installed on the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find US Cellular willfully3 violated Sections 17.21 and 17.45 of the Rules by failing to light or paint its antenna structure and failing to install temporary warning lights on its antenna structure during construction. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237961A1.html
      • per day in violation of the terms of the station authorization. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that New World willfully2 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1400 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available, and failing to monitor and control the transmission system. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the transmission control and metering requirements is $3,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237962A1.html
      • to establish monitoring procedures to ensure compliance with authorized operating power, mode of operation and AM directional system parameters. In addition, King willfully and repeatedly violated 73.1560 of the Commission's Rules by exceeding nighttime power levels and operating with an improper mode of operation. 12. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000; for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000; for exceeding power limits is $4,000; and for failure to comply with transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237963A1.html
      • outside the principal community to be served. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 20, 2000, Millcreek willfully violated Section 74.1251 of the Rules by failing to operate KUUU-FM1 in accordance with the technical parameters of the booster station's authorization. 12. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,11 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, for use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000, for exceeding authorized antenna height is $5,000, for exceeding power limits is $4,000. Application of the base amount to the noted violations results in a total
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237964A1.html
      • KXDC. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that High Peaks operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and exceeded authorized power in willful violation of Section 74.1235(c) of the Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,11 for unlicensed radio operation is $10,000 and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. Application of the base amount to the two instances of unlicensed operations and the violation of the technical parameters of the station's authorization results in a total base forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237965A1.html
      • stations KSOS and KXOL, willfully violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio in accordance with the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61 and 73.1820(a)(1)(iii) of the Rules by failing to conduct and properly log required EAS tests. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 for failure to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000 and for failure to maintain required records is $1,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Rules requiring timely retransmission of the RMT and RWT
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237966A1.html
      • the authorized TPO." AGM operated the transmitter for KYLZ-FM1 at 127% of the authorized TPO. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AGM willfully violated Section 74.1235(e) of the Commission's Rules by failing to operate the KYLZ-FM1 within the authorized TPO limits. 9. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,7 for operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000, and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In this particular case, the forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is assessed for both STLs. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount is $12,000. In
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237967A1.html
      • procedures to ensure compliance with authorized operating power, mode of operation and AM directional system parameters. In addition, we find that Ramh willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1560 of the Rules by exceeding nighttime power levels and operating with an improper mode of operation. 11. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, for violation of the main studio rules is $7,000, for exceeding power limits is $4,000, and for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237968A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Commission's Rules8 by failing to retransmit the EAS monthly test. In addition, we find that the KPOI-FM EAS encoder was functionally inoperative at the time of inspection on April 3, 2002, as it was initially unable to generate an over-the-air EAS test. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')9, the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring timely retransmission of the monthly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237969A1.html
      • licensing and operation of trunked SMR stations are set forth under Subpart S of Part 90 of the Rules.4 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nextel willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a station without a proper license. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),5 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237970A1.html
      • receipt by broadcast stations in an EAS Local Area or State.9 Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 1, 2002, August 1, 2002, and September 1, 2002, Ho'ona'auao willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules by failing to retransmit the EAS RMT. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),10 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring timely retransmission of the monthly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237971A1.html
      • acting chief operator on a temporary basis, and failing to review the station records at least once each week to determine if required entries are being made and verify that the station has been operated as required by the rules or the station authorization. 8. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), for failure to comply with the main studio rule is $7,000, for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and for failure to maintain required records is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-237972A1.html
      • the Rules by failing to exhibit the prescribed antenna structure lighting, failing to properly maintain an operating automatic alarm system to indicate when the structure lighting is not operating, and failing to notify the FCC of the change in ownership of the antenna structure. 11. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),5 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,6 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238008A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Emmis willfully4 violated Section 17.47(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to provide a properly maintained automatic alarm system for its antenna structure lighting, and willfully and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission using FCC Form 854 of a change in antenna structure ownership. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to properly maintain an automatic alarm system for antenna structure lighting is $2,000 (failure to conduct required monitoring), and for failure to notify the Commission of a change in antenna structure ownership is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238009A1.html
      • place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure. The antenna structure was observed on May 15, 2002, and no ASR number was posted. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 15, 2002, Moffatt willfully2 violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules3 does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number.4 The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238010A1.html
      • the next day. 7.Based on the evidence before us, we find MariTEL Mississippi River, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 1.5 and 80.90 of the Rules by failing to insure that Commission correspondence sent to the address provided by the licensee is delivered to the licensee, and failing to suspend transmissions immediately upon detecting a malfunctioning transmitter. 8.Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an accurate mailing address for the Commission's use (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000, and failure to immediately suspend transmitter operations (unauthorized emission) is $4,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238011A1.html
      • 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed and operational at KAKJ, by failing to register KAKJ's antenna structure with the Commission, and by failing to operate in accordance with the terms of the station authorization as the KAKJ transmitter site and antenna structure were not at the licensed geographical coordinates. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register its antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238012A1.html
      • lists. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 21, 2002, Metro Birch willfully2 violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the base of the station's antenna tower, and by failing to maintain all required items in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238013A1.html
      • place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure. The antenna structure was observed on May 22, 2002, and no ASR number was visible. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 22, 2002, Titan willfully2 violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to display the ASR number. 6. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules3 does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number.4 The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238014A1.html
      • four of WCPC's antenna towers were not enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 27, 2002, WCPC Broadcasting Co., Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide effective locked fences or other enclosures around their antenna structures. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000.4 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238015A1.html
      • though Alliance acquired the structure on May 1, 2001, as of August 12, 2002, the antenna structure was still registered to the Paragould Light and Water Commission. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Alliance willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to change the antenna structure ownership information. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to notify the Commission of a change in antenna structure ownership is $3,000 (failure to file the required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238016A1.html
      • 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 28, 2002, Madison willfully4 violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules.5 Madison failed to display ASR numbers on all five of its antenna structures and it failed to clean or repaint its five antenna structures as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000.6 Section 1.80(b)(4) does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation.7 In assessing the monetary
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238017A1.html
      • for AM radio station WDVA were found unlocked. 7. Based on evidence before us, we find that Mitchell willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structures, and willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose its antenna towers within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register antenna structures is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information), and for failing to enclose its antenna towers within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7,000.6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') requires us to take into account, ``... the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238018A1.html
      • that Truth willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 17.4(a), 73.49 and 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structures from at least January 22 to February 26, 2002, failing to maintain effective antenna tower base fencing on January 22 and 23, 2002, and exceeding authorized field strength limits on January 22 and 23, 2002. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the noted violations are $7,000 for failure to comply with AM fencing requirements, $4,000 for failure to comply with power limits, and $3,000 for failing to register an antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information).5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238019A1.html
      • no lights exhibited. As of January 24, 2002, no report of any light outage was received by the FAA for Media's antenna structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Media repeatedly3 and willfully4 violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to display its ASR number and exhibit prescribed lighting. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000.5 The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number.6 The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation.7 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238020A1.html
      • and 20, 2002, WGGM exceeded field strength limits at two nighttime monitoring points by over 150%. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find HCI, willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 73.49, 17.21 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain effective fencing, by failing to install prescribed lighting and for exceeding nighttime power limits. 12. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective fencing is $7,000; for failing to install prescribed lighting it is $10,000 and for exceeding authorized power limits it is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238021A1.html
      • transmission of energy of communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on October 24, 2001, Javier Rodriguez willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238022A1.html
      • Aviation Administration must register the structure with the Commission.2 Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority constructed a tower that required notification to the FAA, but failed to register the tower with the FCC. We find that Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority willfully3 violated Section 17.4(a) by failing to register their antenna structure as of January 29, 2002. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238023A1.html
      • before us, we find Concilio willfully3 violated Sections 17.4(g), 17.51, and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number, failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting, and failing to report changes in structure ownership. The violation for Section 17.4(g) of the Rules also is repeated4 in that it occurred on more than one day. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000, and for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number.6 The Commission has
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238024A1.html
      • to determine if tower lights were properly working the previous night, had no knowledge as to whether the lights had been visually observed, and the station's log had no entries indicating lighting failures. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mayaguez Radio Corporation willfully4 violated Section 17.51 by failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238025A1.html
      • conclude that stations WRRA, WAXJ and WDHP conducted no EAS monthly tests from at least January 1 to April 25, 2002. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Reef willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 11.61(a)(1)(i) of the Rules by failing to conduct the required monthly EAS tests between January 1 and April 26, 2002. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct EAS tests is $2,000 (failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238027A1.html
      • operated radio transmission equipment on the Public Safety Radio frequencies 463.100 and 468.100 MHz without the required FCC authorization. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on May 6, 2002, Alpha willfully4 violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Commission's Rules by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.5 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238038A1.html
      • antenna structure 1061028 were not illuminated between sunset and sunrise. The FAA received no notification of tower light malfunctions for this tower from Florida Power and Light Company. We find that Florida Power and Light Company willfully3 violated section 17.51(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to properly exhibit red obstruction lights between sunset and sunrise. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules4, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238039A1.html
      • for unlicensed operation and marketing unauthorized devices, yet continued to market the unauthorized devices in violation of the Act and the Rules.6 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CTI willfully7 violated Section 301 of the Act,8 and willfully and repeatedly9 violated Section 302(b) of the Act10 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.11 Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000.12 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238040A1.html
      • was at least twenty watts, and the readout of the power meter during the station inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 11, 2002, Mr. Joseph S. McCreary willfully4 violated Section 95.411 of the Rules5 by using an external radio frequency power amplifier as part of his Citizen Band radio station. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $5,000 (use of unauthorized equipment).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238041A1.html
      • was not operational. The station logs showed no evidence that the equipment had been taken out of service for repair nor that tests had ever been made. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2002, WRHC willfully3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules4 by failing to provide operational EAS equipment. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $8,000.5 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238042A1.html
      • public to the tower bases. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2002, Fenix willfully5 violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.51 and 73.49 of the Rules6 by failing to provide operational EAS equipment, failing to light its towers between sunset and sunrise, and failing to enclose towers with an effective locked enclosure. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this Notice are: $8,000 for non-operational EAS equipment; $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed tower lighting; and $7,000 for failure to enclose antenna tower bases.7 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238043A1.html
      • writing of its violation, warned Lightning about the penalties for marketing non-compliant devices, yet Lightning continued to market the non-compliant device in violation of both the Act and the Rules. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lightning willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $7,000.6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238044A1.html
      • were no entries in the station log indicating equipment malfunction or repair, nor reasons for failure to conduct required EAS tests. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 13, 2002, Faith Bible College, Inc. willfully3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational readiness of its EAS equipment. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238045A1.html
      • Richard Muoz operated radio transmission equipment on the frequency 105.1 MHz without benefit of a license required for such operation. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on April 20 and May 14, 2002, Richard Muoz willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238046A1.html
      • of the required license. Mr. Sarmiento was warned verbally and in writing of the violation yet continued the unlicensed operation. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 19 and 20, 2002, Octavio Sarmiento, Jr. repeatedly3 and willfully4 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000.5 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238047A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Seggi willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 17.4(g), 17.23, 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to display the ASR numbers, failing to provide prescribed obstruction lighting, failing to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings, and failing to exhibit red obstruction lights from sunset to sunrise. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number.6 The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is $2,000 per violation.7 In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238048A1.html
      • 2002, Mediacom repeatedly15 and willfully16 violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by failing to limit signal leakage from its cable television system to the specified amount. We also find that on March 13, 2002, Mediacom willfully violated Section 76.611(a) of the Rules by exceeding the allowed cumulative signal leakage performance criteria on its cable television system. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $8,000.17 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238049A1.html
      • Manuel M. Vzquez operated radio transmission equipment on the frequency 103.3 MHz without benefit of the required Commission license. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 19 and April 20, 2002, Manuel M. Vzquez willfully1 and repeatedly2 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238050A1.html
      • April 4 and April 18, 2002, the paint on the lower two-thirds of the structure was obstructed by cables attached to the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pinnacle Towers, Inc. willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238051A1.html
      • with a license. On May 14, 2002, Homere Hyppolite operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 99.7 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 14, 2002, Homere Hyppolite willfully2 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238052A1.html
      • Inc. failed to exhibit the required lights on the WPGS tower from at least April 23 to April 25, 2002. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WPGS, Inc. repeatedly4 and willfully5 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $10,000.6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238053A1.html
      • certification, that exceeded the radiation limitations for such devices, and that caused harmful interference.3 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Accessory Connection Inc. willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 301 and 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, by operating an unauthorized cellular antenna light display unit without the required Commission authorization. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for operation of radio transmission equipment without an authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238054A1.html
      • license. On May 14, 2002, Odino Joseph operated a radio station on the frequency 104.3 MHz from 530 11th Street North, Naples, Florida, without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Odino Joseph willfully2 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmission apparatus without a license is $10,000.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238186A1.html
      • tuning box to the antenna was not protected by any fencing or other enclosure. The antenna had radio frequency potential at the base of the antenna structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on April 23 and 24, 2002, Wilson Broadcasting Co., Inc. repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $7,000 for AM tower fencing violations.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238187A1.html
      • or below 64. On May 14, 2002, Comcast's cable system in Etowah, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 68.3. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 14, 2002, Comcast Cablevision of the South willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238188A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Atlantic Beach Radio, Inc. willfully4 violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and by operating with excessive power during nighttime hours in violation of the terms of station authorization. These violations are repeated5 in that they occurred on more than one day. 12. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and for operation with excessive power is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238189A1.html
      • willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 17.51, 17.23, 17.48(a), and 17.47(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to exhibit prescribed obstruction lighting, failing to conform to the prescribed painting and lighting specifications, failing to notify the FAA of the extinguishment of the lighting, and failing to maintain an automatic alarm system which can detect failure of the lighting. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238190A1.html
      • attenuate its second harmonic emissions. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Monroe willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 73.1745(a), 73.1201(a), and 73.44(b) of the Rules by operating with daytime power at night, failing to identify the station by call sign, and failing to attenuate transmission system emissions by the amount prescribed in the Rules. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000, failure to identify is $1,000, and unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238191A1.html
      • to immediately notify the Commission using FCC Form 854 upon any change in ownership. Commission records reflect the structure's previous owner. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find East Tennessee willfully3 violated Sections 17.4(g), and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number and failing to report changes in structure ownership. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number.5 The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238192A1.html
      • two attempts to register the structure, it has been over two years since the last attempt, with no evidence of any further attempts since August, 9 1999. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Morris Communications, Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238193A1.html
      • 32 13' 35''N Latitude, 083 13' 10''W Longitude. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Farnell O'Quinn willfully3 violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate in accordance with the terms of the station authorization by failing to construct its transmitter site and antenna structure for WUFF at the licensed geographical coordinates. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238194A1.html
      • conducted or received for the period February 2, 2000 to June 27, 2002, nor did the system record indicate EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair.2 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Adelphia Communications Corporation willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238195A1.html
      • hour and 15 minutes, past the time to discontinue operation. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find Lighthouse Broadcasting willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to reduce power at sunset and then discontinue operation after the post sunset authority hours. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and for operation with excessive power during post sunset hours and failure to discontinue operation after post sunset hours is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238196A1.html
      • July 10, 2002, Overton's cable system in Livingston, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 70.6. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 10, 2002, James C. Bilbrey ET AL, Overton County Cable TV willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238197A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find J & W Promotions, Inc., willfully4 violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed and operational at WAPZ, by failing to register WAPZ's antenna structure with the Commission, and by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing its antenna tower. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to register its antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238198A1.html
      • 2002, Valley's cable system in Fort Valley, Georgia operated with a CLI value of 68.3. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 23 and 25, 2002, Valley Cable TV, Inc. willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and on July 25, 2002, willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238199A1.html
      • in height.2 In addition, the structure had been assigned painting and lighting requirements by the FCC on the WANA broadcast station license. Therefore, Lankford's antenna structure required Commission registration. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dewey D. Lankford willfully3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register his antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238200A1.html
      • the structure had been assigned painting and lighting requirements by the FCC on the WOFE broadcast station license. Therefore, P & G's antenna structure required Commission registration. Based on the evidence before us, we find that P & G Properties, Inc. willfully3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238201A1.html
      • the structure had been assigned painting and lighting requirements by the FCC on the WDNT broadcast station license. Therefore, Brewer's antenna structure required Commission registration. Based on the evidence before us, we find that J. L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC willfully3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238202A1.html
      • structure was registered from at least August 26 to September 3, 2002. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Southern Media Communications, Inc. willfully4 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was operational at WBCA and by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to register its antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238203A1.html
      • 1:50 P.M local time. The station's general manager stated that the main studio was not staffed during normal business hours. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Coffee County Broadcasting, Inc. willfully8 violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WMSR(AM) during normal business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238204A1.html
      • no medium intensity obstruction lighting was observed on Signal One's antenna structure #1216312. Signal One had not notified the FAA of the light outage.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Signal One willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238205A1.html
      • to have the structure repainted, however, visibility of the structure at the time of inspection was diminished during daylight hours. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Barinowski willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1062662. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238207A1.html
      • operated station KZEE with antenna input power at 130% of the authorized daytime power of 500 watts. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 9 and 24, 2002, Tarrant repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Commission's rules by operating with antenna input power greater than 105% of authorized power. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for exceeding authorized power limits (i.e. operating station KZEE with an antenna input power at a level more than 105% of authorized power).4 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238208A1.html
      • was required to be painted, had significantly faded paint resulting in poor visibility of the structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 19, 2002, Kilgore Video willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and, with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238209A1.html
      • notice to the FAA, and thus required Commission registration, yet Community Broadcast failed to register the structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that from at least April 17, 2002 through May 7, 2002, Community Broadcast repeatedly3 and willfully4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238210A1.html
      • 6, 2001. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on December 6, 2001, TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc., willfully2 violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of each transmitter site located within 120 km (75 miles) of the U.S. - Mexican border within 30 days of commencing operation. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238211A1.html
      • June 11, 2002, MSA Development owned an antenna structure that required notice to the FAA, and thus required Commission registration, yet MSA Development failed to register the structure. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find MSA Development willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238212A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find Hill Country Real Estate Development Corporation repeatedly4 and willfully5 violated Sections 17.50, 17.51 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to repaint the structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility, failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting, and failing to notify the Commission upon any change in ownership information. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information, such as the required notification to the FCC of changes in ownership information, is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking specifications is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238213A1.html
      • registered owner of antenna structure number 1051379 and is responsible for maintaining the structure's lighting and marking. On May 5, 2002, Access.1 failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure number 1051379 located in Marshall, Texas. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Access.1 Communications Corp. willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238214A1.html
      • and did not register the tower until May 1, 2002, after an agent of the Houston Office informed them that the tower was not registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Texas Cable Partners LP willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to register their antenna structure. . 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice of Apparent Liability is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238215A1.html
      • American Family Association failed to maintain a main studio for station KBKC. American Family Association neither requested nor received a waiver of the main studio rules for KBKC. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American Family Association willfully2 violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio for KBKC. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238216A1.html
      • though the metallic supporting structure of the antenna structure was painted, the unpainted, black coaxial cable mounted on the outside of the supporting structure obscured the visibility of the paint. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on May 1, 2002, Midwest Tower Partners, LLC willfully3 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed marking is $10,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238217A1.html
      • April 3, 2002, Lake Mobile Phone failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure number 1064409. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 3, 2002, Lake Mobile Phone willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238218A1.html
      • structure number 1033509 required painting because it exceeded 200 feet in height and painting was prescribed by both the FCC and FAA, yet the structure was unpainted. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on May 16, 2002, Haviland willfully2 violated Section 17.21 of the Rules by failing to paint the tower as required. 4. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed painting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238219A1.html
      • Inc. failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure number 1223423 because the required structure markings were faded and rusted. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 30, 2002, Deans Cablevision Inc. willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238220A1.html
      • receive EAS tests; failing to conduct required monitoring of the tower lighting and lighting systems associated with the four towers utilized by station KGGF; failing to clean and repaint the paint on the four KGGF towers; and failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the four KGGF towers with RF potential at their base. . 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violation(s) cited in this notice are: $10,000 for failure to clean and repaint the towers, $7,000 for failure to maintain effective locked fencing, $2,000 for failure to conduct required monitoring of the lighting and lighting system, and $2,000 for failure to determine and log the cause of any failure to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238221A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio for KBIY and Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to make available the public file during regular business hours and failing to retain required materials in the public file. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000 and violations of the public file rules is $10,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238222A1.html
      • schedule for the previous week showed the main studio completely unattended for most of the business day during that week. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find KGGF-KUSN, Inc. willfully8 and repeatedly9 violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of KGGF-FM during normal business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238224A1.html
      • structure #1226514. According to VoiceStream, the lighting was not exhibited until June 29, 2002. VoiceStream did not notify the FAA of the light outage.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find VoiceStream willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit all high intensity and medium intensity obstruction lighting. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238225A1.html
      • had no strobed lighting in operation at the time of inspection to increase its visibility to aircraft during daylight hours. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Verizon willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1001297. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238226A1.html
      • antenna structure #1004380 was severely faded and no longer the required aviation orange in color. As a result the structure was not clearly visible. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Alltel willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the antenna structure as necessary to maintain good visibility. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to clean and repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238236A1.html
      • main studio must provide sufficient transmission system monitoring and control capability so as to ensure compliance with Section 73.1350 of the Rules. Section 73.1800(a) of the Rules requires licensees of each station to maintain a station log. 7.The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')5 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.6 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully7 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act8 and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules.9 8.Based on the evidence before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238237A1.html
      • 420 Energy was aware for some time that it was operating in violation of Section 1.903(a) and consciously chose to continue to operate in violation. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 420 Energy Investments, Inc. operated in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for use of an unauthorized frequency at four thousand dollars ($4,000) per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238238A1.html
      • were repaired the following day. The licensee further stated that the lock on the door at tower #3 was ``cleaned, lubricated and reinstalled'' on November 25, 2000. 5.Based on the evidence before us, we find that Erald Broadcasting, Inc. operated in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for AM tower fencing violations at seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act4, that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238239A1.html
      • by using a power amplifier, in violation of Sections 95.409 and 95.411 of the Commission's Rules.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28, 2001, Jeffrey Alan Pettrey operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in willful3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), set the base forfeiture amounts of $10,000 for unlicensed operation.4 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238240A1.html
      • red flashing lighting during the nighttime. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Detroit SMSA Limited Partnership willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Section 17.23 of the Commission's Rules by its failure to light the antenna tower with medium intensity lighting during the daytime. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for prescribed lighting. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238241A1.html
      • Shepler'' having navigated the Great Lakes on September 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 28, 2000, and their vessel the ``Wyandot'' having navigated the Great Lakes on September 20, 22, and 24, 2000 without having had their radiotelephone installation inspected and certified as required by the Great Lakes Agreement. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at five hundred dollars ($500) per day for violating the Great Lakes Agreement. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238242A1.html
      • Shepler'' and ``Wyandot'', for apparent violations of Sections 80.953(a) and 80.953(b) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (the ``Rules'') by navigating the Great Lakes without having obtained the annual GLA inspection and certification of their marine VHF radiotelephone equipment.2 2. Specifically, we correct the citation of Section 503(b)(2)(d) of the Act in paragraph 6 of the NAL to read Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 Since violation of the Great Lakes Agreement is subject to a non-Section 503 forfeiture, we must reference only the Section 1.80 provisions. 3. In like manner, we must also correct the reference to base forfeiture amounts and their inflation adjustment. Section 1.80 specifies a statutory maximum of five hundred fifty dollars ($550) per day for non-Section 503
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238243A1.html
      • Sections 73.1225(d)(1), 73.1350(a), 73.1690(b)(2), 73.3526(e)(1) and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain records, failing to operate WCMI(AM) according to the terms of the station authorization by constructing and operating from an unauthorized location, failing to file the required forms or information and failing to maintain the public inspection file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for operating beyond the terms of the station authorization, $4,000 for construction at an unauthorized location, $1,000 for failure to maintain records, $3,000 for failure to file the required forms
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238244A1.html
      • on August 22, 2000, September 6, 2000, September 7, 2000, September 14, 2000, September 16, 2000, and September 17, 2000, without a license or other authorization issued by the Commission. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dr. Pierre willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for operation of an unlicensed transmitter at eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act4,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238245A1.html
      • a statement of action taken to correct the condition or omission complained of and to preclude its recurrence.4 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NEPC willfully5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure and Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), the base amount for failure to respond to official Commission correspondence is $4,000, and the base amount for failure to register antenna structures is $3,000 (failure
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238246A1.html
      • Rules. Zachery's responses to the Notices have been deficient in substance and in some cases have failed to address the violations. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Zachery Broadcasting Company willfully6 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.3526, 17.50, 17.56, 17.48, 17.49, 17.4(a) and 73.49 of the Commission's Rules.7 Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain EAS equipment [ 11.35(a)] is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a public inspection file [73.3526] is $10,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238247A1.html
      • operator had reviewed the logs for required entries. In response to the NOV, Mr. Paris stated that ``we failed to maintain the logs properly''. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KYOO Communications willfully6 and/or repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records and logs [73.1800(a)] is $1,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required monitoring of the operational parameters and calibrate the remote AM base current metering
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238248A1.html
      • of the Rules due to cabling attached to the antenna structure that obscured the structure's required obstruction markings. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pinnacle willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with antenna structure registration #1053157. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238249A1.html
      • the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.5 Considering the entire record and applying the factors listed above, this case warrants a forfeiture of $2,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,6 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,7 Qwest Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willful violation of Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to display the antenna structure registration number. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238250A1.html
      • System Inc. failed to register its antenna structure located at or near 38 17' 31" North Latitude and 91 41" 50' West Longitude, near Belle, Missouri. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find St. Louis Mobile System Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238251A1.html
      • purchase of both stations on July 18, 2001. As of July 10, 2002, the licensee was missing four quarterly lists for each of the stations. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Cumulus willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain required issues-programs listings at both KQTP and KWIC. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure maintain required records, such as the issues-programs listings, is $1,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238252A1.html
      • July 19, 2002, AAT admitted that they continued to fail to provide any monitoring of the lighting every 24 hours or provide an automatic alarm system. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find AAT willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to monitor the status of its antenna structure lighting. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to monitor the status of its antenna structure lighting (failure to conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238253A1.html
      • by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the base of the KPWB AM tower, failing to provide transmitter control and monitoring capabilities for the KPWB FM transmitter, failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, and failing to maintain a current ownership report, request for political time and issues-programs lists in the station's public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for AM tower fencing violations, $3,000 for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, $8,000 for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment, and $10,000 for violation of the public file rules.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238254A1.html
      • 2002. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 17, 2002, American willfully4 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.3527(e)(4), 73.3527(e)(7) and 73.3527(e)(8) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, and by failing to maintain a current ownership report, The Public and Broadcasting, and issues-programs lists in the station's public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 for EAS equipment not being operational, and $10,000 for violation of the public file rules.5 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238255A1.html
      • As a result of the faded paint and black cabling, the structure was not clearly visible. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Crown Castle GT Company LLC willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1008517. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238259A1.html
      • so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and systems are in operation.'' 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 11, 2001, Union willfully2 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have functioning EAS equipment is $8,000.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238260A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that during the period of March 10 - May 9, 2001, Barnstable Broadcasting, Inc. dba Two Rivers Broadcasting Limited Partnership repeatedly and willfully violated Section 17.51(b) of the rules by failing to maintain all lighting in operational condition and failing to notify the Federal Aviation Administration of any light outages. 15. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000 for failure to maintain prescribed obstruction lighting, and $1,000 for failure to determine and log the reasons why EAS tests were not being received.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238261A1.html
      • writing within ten days from receipt of a notice from the Commission or such other period as may be specified. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that National Cable willfully2 violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to the Notices of Violation dated September 6, 2001, and October 5, 2001. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238262A1.html
      • 1998. 5. Section 73.49 of the Rules requires that antenna towers having radio fr equency potential at the base be enclosed by an effective locked fence or other enclosu re. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 23, 2000, T & W willfully violated sections 17.4(a)(2) and 73.49 of the Rules. Pursuant to Se ction 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for fai lure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000. The base forfeit ure amount for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary f orfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238263A1.html
      • the 17 pieces of correspondence from the Commission associated with the inspections of these stations. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 7, 2000, Christian Broadcasting Corporation willfully4 violated Sections 1.89(b) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence and for failing to register its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base amount for failure to respond to official Commission correspondence is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to register antenna structures is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information).5 The total base forfeiture for both violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238264A1.html
      • or other enclosure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 24, 2001, Hancock willfully2 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available, and failing to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have functioning EAS equipment is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence is $7,000.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238265A1.html
      • tower was unlocked. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 14, 2001, MAPA willfully2 violated Sections 11.35(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available, and failing to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fence violations is $7,000.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238266A1.html
      • unlocked and standing open. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CWH willfully2 violated Sections 17.4(a)(2), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to register its three antenna structures, failing to exhibit red obstruction lights on its antenna structures, and failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's ``south'' antenna structure. 10.Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structures (failure to file required forms or information) is $ 3,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting or painting is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violation is $7,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238267A1.html
      • in accordance with the Act and with a license.2 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 13, and September 13, 2000, Richard I. Rowland operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated3 and willfull4 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $10,000 for unlicensed operation.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238268A1.html
      • 3. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31, 2000, Cumulus Licensing Corporation willfully1 violated Section 11.35(a), of the Commission's Rules2 by not having Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment installed and operating at Stations WHBX(FM), Tallahassee, Florida, WHBT(AM), Tallahassee, Florida, and WWLD(FM), Tallahassee, Florida. 4. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 each for not having EAS equipment installed or operational.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238269A1.html
      • receive EAS test and alerts. III. DISCUSSION 3. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31, 2000, Rebus, Inc. willfully1 violated Section 11.35(a), of the Commission's Rules2 by not having Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment installed and operating at station WTAL(AM) in Tallahassee, Florida. 4. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 for not having EAS equipment installed or operational.3 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238270A1.html
      • and filed the appropriate forms after they were advised of the discrepancy. III. DISCUSSION 6. Section 17.51(a) requires that all red obstruction lighting shall be exhibited from sunset to sunrise unless otherwise specified. FCC agents confirmed the allegation about antenna structure light outages. The antenna structure owner failed to exhibit the red obstruction lights as required. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)2 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238271A1.html
      • determined that SpectraSite was unaware of the tower outage and that FAA had not been notified of the outage. III. DISCUSSION 4. Section 17.51(a) requires that all red obstruction lighting shall be exhibited from sunset to sunrise unless otherwise specified. On April 5, 2001 Tampa Office agents observed that antenna structure # 1215109 was not illuminated. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)2 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (`Act'')3 requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238272A1.html
      • the time of the inspection, the owner had intentionally turned off the daytime lighting on the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American InfoAge, LLC willfully2 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Commission's Rules by its failure to comply with the Commission's Rules regarding the construction, marking and lighting of antenna structures. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)3 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take in account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act'')4, as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238273A1.html
      • willfully4 violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Section 17.23 of the Commission's Rules by failing to paint and light the antenna structure. In addition, we find that Rio Grande willfully violated Section 17.57 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify the Commission immediately of any change in structure height. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for prescribed lighting and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238274A1.html
      • responded on February 27, 2001. In the reply, CommuniComm identifies the specific actions taken to correct the violations noted in the NOV and to preclude their recurrence, as well as, a time line for completion of such actions. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')13 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules.14 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules.15 ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision.16 ``Repeated'' means
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238275A1.html
      • ``willfull'' as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly.2 It is not pertinent whether or not the licensee's act or omissions are intended to violate the law. Forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b)(2) of the Act are determined in accordance with the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement).3 7. The Commission's Rules clearly state that if tower construction or modification is planned within 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) of a directional AM broadcast station array, the Public Mobile Service licensee must notify the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238276A1.html
      • to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The amount of forfeiture penalty should take into consideration the severity of the instant violation, in addition to the status and prior offenses of the violator. The base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000, in accordance with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In view of the fact that HCTV was previously issued an Official Notice of Violation on November 29, 2000 for violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules, we see no reason to mitigate the base forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238277A1.html
      • on July 26, 2000, Califormula continues to operate the Private Microwave radio station at 1690 Frontage Road, Chula Vista, California. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that since July 25, 2000, Califormula has willfully3 and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, as amended4, by operating radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an authorization is ten thousand dollars ($10,000)5. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238278A1.html
      • outstanding.'' Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hogar has willfully3 violated Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by not maintaining a public inspection file. A monetary forfeiture of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is proposed for this violation. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,5 KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violating Sections 73.54(d), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1590(a)(6) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238291A1.html
      • on September 10, 2000, Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated5 and willful6 violation of Section 301 of the Act.7 And, on March 20, 2000 Mr. Nakamura transmitted a false distress signal in willful violation of Section 325(a) of the Act.8 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amounts are $10,000 for unlicensed operation, and $7,000 for causing malicious interference.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238292A1.html
      • with the Act and with a license.2 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 10, 2000, Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a Marvin Eugene Barnes operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated3 and willful4 violation of Section 301 of the Act.5 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238293A1.html
      • and 25, 2001, Alan-Leonard Brockway operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in repeated6 and willful7 violation of Section 301 of the Act and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow an inspection of his radio station upon reasonable request by an authorized Commission representative. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), set the base forfeiture amounts of $10,000 for unlicensed operation and $7,000 for failure to allow inspection.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238294A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 73.1580 and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Commission's Rules by its failure to conduct required inspections of the transmitting and monitoring sytems to ensure proper station operation and failure to review station records and verify that the station was operating as required by the Commission's Rules and station authorization. 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),10 set base forfeiture amounts of $4,000 for exceeding power limits, $3,000 for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring, and $1,000 for failure to maintain required records. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238295A1.html
      • to Commission communications, by failing to have an operational EAS system, and by failing to determine and log the reasons why EAS tests were not being received from each of its two assigned monitoring sources and why the stations did not determine and log the reasons for failed required test activations. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at $4,000 for failure respond to Commission communications, sets the base forfeiture amount at $8000 for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment, and the base amount at $1000 for failure
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238296A1.html
      • the base of the tower was not locked and the gate was open. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 7, 2002, Anastos Media Group willfully2 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to enclose the base of the antenna tower at $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238297A1.html
      • an automatic properly maintained indicator designed to register failure of such lights, failing to notify the nearest Flight Service Station of the FAA of the extinguishment of the top steady burning light that was not corrected within 30 minutes and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make an observation of the antenna structure's lights at least once each 24 hours at $2000, failure to notify the nearest Flight Service Station of the FAA of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238298A1.html
      • readily visible near the base of the antenna structure. Section 73.49 of the Rules requires that licensees enclose any AM tower with radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 11. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules3. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act6 and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules7. 12. Based on the evidence
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238299A1.html
      • the WNAM array on August 7, 2001, the agent found a fence had fallen over, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the antenna. Per the licensee's reply, it was not repaired until September 18, 2001. 5. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)5 of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules.6 6. Based on the evidence before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238300A1.html
      • local authorities a means for immediate communications with the public to provide information during emergencies. Broadcast stations must transmit national level EAS messages and tests. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Faith willfully2 violated Section 11.52(a) of the Rules by failing to install and operate EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238301A1.html
      • functioning of the tower lighting on the morning of May 16, 2002. Mortenson waited until after another sunset to sunrise period before notifying the FAA of the improper functioning of the lights. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mortenson willfully4 violated Section 17.51(a) of the Commission's Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238302A1.html
      • the Commission's rule requiring EAS tests.7 Therefore, we must determine what an appropriate forfeiture amount should be for this violation. The requirement that cable systems conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other required operational performance checks identified in the Rules as required measurements or required monitoring. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')8, sets the base forfeiture amount at $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring. As failure to make measurements or conduct required monitoring carries a base forfeiture amount of $2,000, pursuant to the Forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238303A1.html
      • Transport, Inc. has willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 303(q) of the Act, as amended, by failure to maintain the prescribed illumination of its antenna tower, and Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Commission's Rules by their failure to register its antenna tower and their failure to respond to official Commission correspondence. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')7, sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the lighting violation, three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to register the antenna structure and $4,000 for failure to respond to official Commission correspondence. In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238304A1.html
      • reply of August 23, 2001. Checks made on September 20, 2001 revealed that Parnassos had still failed to register their tower. III. DISCUSSION 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Parnassos has willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register their antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to register the antenna structure. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238305A1.html
      • violated the Great Lakes Agreement and Sections 80.953(a) and 80.953(b) of the Commission's Rules as a result of their vessel the ``Recovery'' having navigated the Great Lakes on June 10, 11, 19 and 24, 2001 without having had their radiotelephone installation inspected and certified as required by the Great Lakes Agreement. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the statutory maximum amount forfeiture at five hundred fifty dollars ($550) per day for violating the Great Lakes Agreement. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the downward adjustment factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238306A1.html
      • A. Brothers and inspected the radio station at 3845 Ellwood, Berkley, Michigan. During this inspection Mr. Brothers indicated that he had operated the station but was discontinuing the operation. III. Discussion 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Thomas A. Brothers willfully2 violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount at $11,000 for operation of an unlicensed transmitter. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,4 which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238307A1.html
      • a correction to the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture1 (``NAL'') in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) issued to Thomas A. Brothers. Specifically, we correct the reference to the base forfeiture amount in paragraph 5 of the NAL. 2. The corrected second sentence of paragraph 5 reads as follows: ``The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for operation of an unlicensed transmitter.'' 3. IT IS ORDERED that a copy of this Erratum shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Thomas A. Brothers, 3845
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238308A1.html
      • during the times the station is in operation. At the time of inspection, Oberlin failed to have Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment installed and operating. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Oberlin willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35(a) by failing to install and maintain operational EAS equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238309A1.html
      • conspicuous location so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure; Sections 17.47(a)(1) and 17.47(a)(2) for failing to monitor the antenna tower lights; Section 17.48(a) for failing to report the tower light outage to the FAA; and Section 17.51(b) for failing to continuously exhibit the intensity lighting. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')7, sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the lighting violation; and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to report the tower light outage to the FAA. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238310A1.html
      • of June 4, 2002, and failed to register its antenna structure near Hannibal, Missouri as of June 5, 2002. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4 and June 5, 2002, US Cable willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register two of its antenna structures. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure is $3,000 for each violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238337A1.html
      • to provide written response to Section 80.29, 80.159(d) and 80.409(b) violations in reply to Federal Communications Commission official correspondence dated September 28, 1999, October 25, 1999, December 3, 1999 and February 28, 2000. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that LaPierre willfully8 violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999), (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failing to provide written response to Federal Communications Commission official correspondence at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238338A1.html
      • questioned during the subsequent interview as to the status of the public file, he responded by stating that one had not been established as yet. 14. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RADIO ONE LICENSES INC. willfully5 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(d), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1800(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Policy Statement''), sets the base amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational at eight thousand dollars ($8,000), failure to establish a local or toll-free telephone number in the community of license one thousand dollars ($1,000), failure to establish
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238339A1.html
      • 2001. Time Warner acknowledged in its response that it had failed to comply with the Commission's EAS requirements, and detailed corrective steps that it had taken to eliminate the violations (e.g., repairing EAS equipment). III. Discussion 6. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')6 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.7 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules.8 ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision.9 ``Repeated'' means commission or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238340A1.html
      • Section 17.48(a) of the Rules requires the owners of an antenna structure that has been assigned lighting specifications to notify the FAA if the lights on the tower are extinguished and not corrected within 30 minutes. 6. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')3 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.4 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully5 or repeatedly 6 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act7 and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules.8 7. Based on the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238341A1.html
      • of the authorized power. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that J4 willfully1 and repeatedly2 violated Section 73.51(e)(2) for failing to keep a record of the efficiency factor ?F? in the station records and Section 73.1560(a)(1) for operating with power in excess of 105% of the authorized power. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (?Forfeiture Policy Statement?)3, sets the base forfeiture amount at $1,000 for failing to maintain a record of the efficiency factor ?F? in the station records (required records), and $4,000 for operating with power in excess of 105% of the authorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238342A1.html
      • electronic devices the Detroit Office received regarding his CB operation, and his admission that he operated his CB radio with the linear amplifier attached. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Frank Kluz willfully3 violated Section 95.411 by having a linear amplifier in line at his CB station. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $5,000 for the use of unauthorized equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238343A1.html
      • provisions of the Act. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 12, 2000, November 16, 2001, and November 17, 2001, Rev. Dr. Philius Nicholas was responsible for the operation of radio transmission equipment on 88.1 MHz, without a Commission authorization in willful2 and repeatedly3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238344A1.html
      • November 16, and November 17, 2001; 88.1 MHz on December 14, 2001, January 4, January 5, January 11, and January 18, 2002; 90.1 MHz on January 27, 2002, and 88.1 MHz on June 22, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 14. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238345A1.html
      • with a license granted under the provisions of the Act. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gateway Security Systems, Inc., operated radio transmission equipment on 464.0375 and 469.0375 MHz on May 24, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful2 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,4 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238349A1.html
      • determined, based on information contained in the FCC database for Antenna Structure Registration number 1060096, that the overall height above ground of Morgan's antenna structure is 88.3 meters (289.7 feet). 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Morgan Tower Inc. has willfully2 violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking specifications. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238350A1.html
      • 104.7 MHz was not licensed and exceeded the permissible level for non-licensed low-powered radio transmissions by 254 times. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 24, 2002, California Speedway operated radio transmission apparatus without a Commission authorization in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238352A1.html
      • visibility. The agent observed that the tower paint was badly faded and chipped, making the tower a hazard to air navigation. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NMPC willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.50 of the rules by failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of antenna structures. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238356A1.html
      • even though the station had been owned by Petracom for at least two years. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Petracom willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly EAS tests and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.6 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other required
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238362A1.html
      • ``willfull'' as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly.2 It is not pertinent whether or not the licensee's act or omissions are intended to violate the law. Forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b)(2) of the Act are determined in accordance with the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement).3 7. The Commission's Rules clearly state that if tower construction or modification is planned within 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) of a directional AM broadcast station array, the Public Mobile Service licensee must notify the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238566A1.html
      • letters from the public, and the issues/programs lists for the years 2001 and 2002. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tralyn repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly EAS tests, and failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct EAS tests is $2,000 (failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring), and the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238570A1.html
      • of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and systems are in operation.'' At the time of inspection, Cox personnel acknowledged that the EAS equipment was not operational. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cox willfully2 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238571A1.html
      • necessary to maintain good visibility.'' 3 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 21, 2000, Natchez willfully4 violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to display the antenna structure registration number and failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to display the antenna structure registration number is $1,000 (failure to maintain required records) and the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. 5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238586A1.html
      • easy access to the tower via a gate which was found unlocked and open. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 11, 2002, Kaspar Broadcasting Co. of Missouri willfully2 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the base of the station's antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238975A1.html
      • a CB station if the operator utilizes an external radio frequency power amplifier. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 21 and 23, 2001, Klaus D. Kramer repeatedly3 and willfully4 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitters without Commission authorization. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for unlicensed operation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238976A1.html
      • of energy of communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license.1 7.Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 26, 2001, David Edwin Merrell repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 8.Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act5 requires us to take into account ?? the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238977A1.html
      • Commission's rules. 10. We conclude that since October 18, 2000, Groveton repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Commission's rules by failure to register the antenna supporting structure owned by Groveton and utilized by station KYCX-FM at or near geographical coordinates 31 42' 25''N / 096 31'23''W. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238978A1.html
      • made. Permission to resume normal operation was granted. 6. On September 27, 2001 an agent from the Commission's Dallas office conducted a follow up inspection and found the system in compliance with the basic signal leakage criteria. 7. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')14 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules.15 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules.16 ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision.17 ``Repeated'' means
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238979A1.html
      • States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on May 15, 2002, Marcel (NMI) Charles, a.k.a. Marcel M. Charles, a.k.a. Mariel M.Charles, a.k.a. Joseph M. Charles willfully2 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238980A1.html
      • 14, 2002, Josue Alusma operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 100.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 20 and May 14, 2002, Josue Alusma repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation(s) cited in this notice is $10,000.4 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238982A1.html
      • and FCC rules.3 On June 4 and July 1, 2002, the paint on the structure was obstructed by cables attached to the structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tower Properties, Inc. willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238983A1.html
      • failed to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on structure 1232899 in accordance with its registration requirements. In addition, Gulf Stream did not report the light outage to the FAA.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Gulf Stream willfully3 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1232899. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-238984A1.html
      • Florida. In addition, WELE failed to immediately notify the FAA of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find WELE willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on antenna structure 1062835 in Ormond Beach, Florida. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239066A1.html
      • register an existing antenna structure by July 1, 1998, and failing to make the station's public inspection file available during normal business hours. In addition, we find that Willis willfully violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to the Notice of Violation dated May 3, 2001, or our correspondence dated May 25, 2001. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operating EAS equipment is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information), and finally, the base forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239067A1.html
      • of daytime power on February 5, 2002, from station sign-on at 6:00 am CST until local sunrise at 6:30 am CST. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on February 4 and 5, 2002, Sycamore Valley Broadcasting, Inc. repeatedly8 and willfully9 violated Sections 11.52(d), 11.61(a), 17.50, 73.1400 and 73.1745(a) of the Commission's Rules.10 14. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this notice are: $10,000 for failure to repaint the tower (failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking), $8,000 for non-operational EAS equipment, $4,000 for operating with excessive power at night (exceeding power limits), and $3,000 for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements.11 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239068A1.html
      • Attention signal generating and receiving equipment used as part of the EAS are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and systems are in operation....'' 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 4, 2002, WCSZ willfully2 violated Section 11.35(a)3 of the Commission's Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)4 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment is $8,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239069A1.html
      • below 64. On April 17, 2002, Comcast's cable system in Woodbury, Tennessee operated with a CLI value of 69.3. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 17, 2002, Comcast Cablevision of Nashville II LLC willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239070A1.html
      • meter was 20 amperes, or more than forty-two times the minimum normal indication. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 16 and 17, 2002, Radio 810 Nashville, Incorporated repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Sections 73.1350(d)(2) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules, and on April 18, 2002, willfully violated Section 73.1215(a) of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this notice are: $4,000 for operating with excessive power at night (exceeding power limits), $3,000 for failure to terminate broadcast operation when required (violation of transmitter control and metering requirements), and $3,000 for failure to maintain properly calibrated monitoring equipment (violation of transmitter control and metering requirements).4
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239071A1.html
      • failing to have EAS equipment installed so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available and failing to maintain a public inspection file. In addition, we find that Jamie Patrick willfully violated Section 1.89(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to the Notice of Violation dated July 26, 2001, or our correspondence dated September 19, 2001. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install and have operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000.3 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``... the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239073A1.html
      • acquired ownership of these two towers on February 8, 2002, yet, as of July 31, 2002, Verizon had failed to notify the Commission of the change in ownership. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Verizon willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to report changes in antenna structure ownership. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000 for each violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239077A1.html
      • of operation on any frequency or frequencies between 24 and 35 MHz.'' 2 6. The external radio frequency power amplifier received by the Field Office on June 7, 2000, amplified radio signals on 27.185 MHz. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Exports R Us willfully3 violated Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment (radio frequency power amplifier) is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239154A1.html
      • Dunwoody Village was in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Networx Corporation has willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act, as amended, by operating an unlicensed station at the Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community in Carlisle, Pennsylvania on August 23, 2001. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the operation of an unlicensed station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239155A1.html
      • Transmission system fencing requirements states ``Antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base (series fed, folded unipole, and insulated base antennas) must be enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures.'' 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WOYK Inc. willfully1 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for AM tower fencing. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239156A1.html
      • with effective locked fences or other enclosures. On March 19, 2002 and April 24, 2002, the gate to the fence surrounding the WFBS(AM) antenna structure was unlocked. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FBS willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.4(a), Section 17.51(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for FBS' failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting at $10,000, for FBS' failure to register the antenna structure with the Commission at $3,000 and for FBS' failure to maintain an effective locked
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239157A1.html
      • aware prior to January 12, 2002 of its responsibility to properly measure, adjust and maintain all of its broadcast stations to avoid subsequent violations of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Networx apparently willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,6 which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239158A1.html
      • 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 5 and June 6, 2002, Qwest willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure and failing to maintain the tower paint in such condition that good visibility was achieved. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure at $3,000 for each violation, and for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239160A1.html
      • not available for inspection. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Radio X Broadcasting Corp. willfully2 violated Section 17.50 and 73.3526(b) by failing to repaint its antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure registration #1043256 and failing to keep a public inspection file at its main studio location. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and for failing to have a public inspection file at the station's main studio is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239161A1.html
      • Electronics Unlimited was notified in writing, of its violation, warned about the penalties for marketing non-compliant devices, yet, continued to market the non-compliant device in violation of both Sections.3 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Electronics Unlimited willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 302(b) of the Act6 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.7 Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this notice is $7,000.8 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239162A1.html
      • its antenna structure number 1225706 in accordance with its registration requirements. The FAA had no report of a light outage on this structure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Florida Cellular Service, LLC willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on its antenna structure 1225706. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239163A1.html
      • actual antenna height. Broadcast stations may not construct or operate facilities without advance approval from the FCC. Both major and minor facilities changes require construction permits.8 The mere filing of an application to modify station facilities does not give the permittee or licensee any authority to make the requested changes. 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),9set base forfeiture amounts of $5,000 for exceeding authorized antenna height, $4,000 for construction or operation at unauthorized location, $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $1,000 for failure to maintain required records. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239164A1.html
      • stations and systems are in operation." Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 9, 2001, Alpine willfully violated Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available. 6. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),9 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,10 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,11 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239165A1.html
      • frequency radiation exposure. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sam Bushman, licensee of station KNAK failed to enclose the AM transmission system with an effective locked fence or other enclosure in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),5 and Section 1.80 of the Commissions Rules,6 for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239285A1.html
      • February 25, 2002 at 8:45 p.m., did not have a license for the Marine Coast station at the Beach Motel, 202 Arnold Avenue, Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey. III. Discussion 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Amethyst has willfully2 violated Section 301 of the Act, as amended. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the operation of an unlicensed station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239286A1.html
      • the antenna structure. On November 7, 2001 and November 8, 2001, the top- level red obstruction lighting on antenna structure 1213201 was extinguished. Beacon failed to notify the FAA that the top-level obstruction lighting was extinguished. 8. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended2, (the ``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules3. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Beacon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(g), Section 17.48(a) and Section 17.50 of the Rules. Forfeiture amounts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239287A1.html
      • structure and excessive radio frequency radiation exposure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Commonwealth failed to enclose the AM transmission system for station KLMR with effective locked fences or other enclosures in willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),3 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 for failure to comply with AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239288A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Rushmore willfully violated Sections 73.1350 and 73.1400 of the Commission's Rules by failing to establish monitoring procedures and schedules to determine compliance with operating power and modulation levels and failing to have positive control of the transmitter. 8. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000.4 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239289A1.html
      • in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly.4 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rushmore willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an aural auxiliary broadcast station without a license. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. 5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239290A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that North American Broadcasting Company, Inc, willfully violated Section 73.1560(a) of the Rules, by exceeding authorized nighttime power levels and failing to maintain operating power at the level and within the tolerances specified in its station authorization and by the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239291A1.html
      • for Station KCOS-LP. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Aracelis Ortiz, Executrix of the Estate of Carlos Ortiz, apparently willfully violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1125(c) of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed and operational and failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,15 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for not maintaining a main studio is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239293A1.html
      • August 8, 2002, Fayette County Broadcasting did not have installed at their station properly operating EAS equipment. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Fayette County Broadcasting willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to install EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (?Act?), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239294A1.html
      • base of the antenna structure. At the time of each inspection, the ASR number was not posted at the site. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that VoiceStream willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.4(g) by failing to post the ASR number near the base of the antenna structure. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')6 does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number.7 The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number is two thousand dollars ($2,000) per violation.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-239295A1.html
      • Pilgrim apparently exceeded the authorized nighttime power level on May 9, 2001, in willful violation of Section 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and failed to maintain the required management and staff presence at KSKE's main studio, in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for exceeding power limits at nighttime in violation of Sections 73.1560(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules;10 and $7,000 for failing to maintain the required main studio presence in violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules.11 In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2002/DOC-255039A1.html
      • January 30, 2002, TV 45 Productions, Inc., willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed at station KLHU-CA so that monitoring and transmitting functions were available and by failing to conduct the required monthly and weekly EAS tests. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,9 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237641A1.html
      • station KJQN, Simmons failed to comply with the terms of station K264AC's license and improperly extended the 1 mV/m contour of station KJQN. Based on the evidence, we find that Simmons willfully and repeatedly violated Section 74.1232(d) of the Rules by extending the 1 mV/m contour of FM station KJQN. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),5 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,6 do not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the terms and conditions of the license by extending the 1 mV/m contour of a FM primary radio station. Therefore we must determine an appropriate amount for this violation.7 Similar operational parameters such
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237642A1.html
      • due to the volume of unpainted cabling attached to the face of the structure. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Crown willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 by failing to paint the cabling mounted to the exterior face of the antenna structure. 5.The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,10 which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237645A1.html
      • are set forth under Subpart G of Part 74 of the Rules.5 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Echonet repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a television translator broadcast station without a valid license for over 4 years. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,7 for operating an unlicensed radio station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,8 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237646A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Woodland willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 74.551(a)(2), 74.551(a)(3) and 74.561 of the Commission's Rules by failing to operate the STL transmitter on the authorized frequency and failing to operate the STL at the authorized location.5 12. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),6 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,7 for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,8 which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237650A1.html
      • change in ownership. On January 3, 2003, Entravision filed the required updated ownership information for the structure with the Commission. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Entravision failed to immediately notify the Commission of the change in ownership of the structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237654A1.html
      • EAS equipment. Based on the evidence, we find that Meeker willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational at the time of inspection on November 14, 2002, and for more than two months prior to the inspection date. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,12 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237655A1.html
      • and issued an authorization letter accordingly. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Global operated radio transmitting equipment on unauthorized frequencies of 88.98, 104.1 and 106.9 MHz on January 26, 2003 in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 74.103 of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,5 the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized use of a frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237657A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Sections 11.35, 11.61, and 73.1125 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment properly operational, failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests and failing to ascertain the cause of and log EAS equipment failures, and failing to maintain a main studio. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,23 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to maintain a main studio is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237664A1.html
      • 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Victory Ministries willfully2 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.49, and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower, and failing to have the station's public inspection file available for inspection during regular business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237666A1.html
      • Section 11.35(b) of the Rules.4 Station management was unaware as to when the station had last conducted an EAS test. No station personnel were able to conduct an EAS test. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pearson willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules7 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.8 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237668A1.html
      • structure's height exceeds 200 feet.3 On October 9 and 10, 2002, Best Country did not have their antenna structure in Bogalusa, Louisiana registered with the Commission. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Best Country willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237669A1.html
      • 2002, there was no fence around the base of the antenna tower and the outer fence surrounding the field afforded many unrestricted access points. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Forrester willfully2 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of the antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237670A1.html
      • had malfunctioned. In addition, there were no entries in the station's log to indicate any problem or malfunction of the EAS equipment as required by Section 11.35(b) of the Rules.4 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Chatterbox willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct weekly and monthly EAS tests. 5. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules7 sets forth the base amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.8 The requirement that broadcast stations conduct EAS tests is similar in both nature and severity to other
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237671A1.html
      • for several days up to and including February 10, 2003, PGA Tour operated station WPSE606 on frequency 469.175 MHz with an unauthorized emission, caused interference to another licensee and failed to use a station identifier in willful and repeated violation of Sections 1.903(a), 90.403(e) and 90.425(a) of the Rules. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,5 the base forfeiture amount for operating with an unauthorized emission is $4,000, for causing interference is $7,000 and for failing to operate without a station identifier is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237672A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 11.61 of the Rules, by failing to have EAS equipment operational, by failing to monitor, receive and retransmit required monthly and weekly EAS tests, and by failing to ascertain why the required tests were not conducted and failing to log any EAS equipment failures. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,16 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237677A1.html
      • to reduce KNTB's daytime operating power at sunset. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 5 and 6, 2002, FTP repeatedly violated Section 73.1745 of the Commission's Rules when it operated station KNTB with full power after local sunset in contravention of its station authorization. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),7 sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for exceeding power limits. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237678A1.html
      • ensure compliance with the Rule. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Butterfield Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of station KULE (AM), Ephrata, Washington, willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain a copy of KULE's current authorization in the public inspection file. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violating the public file rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237706A1.html
      • operation. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Autry willfully3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower, and willfully and repeatedly4 violated Section 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to reduce power at sunset and then discontinue operation after the post-sunset authority. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237707A1.html
      • Ross willfully4 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, failing to register their antenna structure, and failing to have all required documents in the station's public inspection file available for inspection at any time during regular business hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237711A1.html
      • Act and with a license. On July 24, 2002, and on August 22, 2002, ESI operated radio-transmitting equipment on the frequency of 156.8050 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 6.Based on the evidence before us, we find ESI willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7.Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a station without a license is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237712A1.html
      • its official station identification, identifying only as ``...93.7, the Coast....'' 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find Commonwealth willfully7 and repeatedly8 violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WEXM during normal business hours and by failing to transmit an official station identification. 12. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000, and failing to transmit the required station identification is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237713A1.html
      • to transmit its official station identification, identifying only as ``...96X....'' 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find Sinclair willfully7 and repeatedly8 violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the main studio of WROX during normal business hours and by failing to transmit an official station identification. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000, and for failing to transmit the required station identification is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237714A1.html
      • NRVRP willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.50 and 73.49 of the Rules. Specifically, we find NRVRP apparently liable for failing to maintain the operational readiness of its EAS equipment, for failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structures and for failing to maintain effective locked fencing around all of its energized AM antenna towers. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain the operational readiness of its EAS equipment is $8,000; the amount for failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structures is $10,000, and the amount for failing to maintain effective fencing around its energized AM antenna towers is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237716A1.html
      • red top beacon and three of its sidelights dark. The owner had made no report of the light outage to the FAA.2 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Jorge L Estrada willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all required red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237717A1.html
      • height above ground level.2 From at least December 30, 1996, until March 7, 2003, Clamor failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Clamor Broadcasting Network Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (failure to register an antenna structure with the Commission) is three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237727A1.html
      • from the structure, resulting in poor visibility of the structures' obstruction markings. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Cumulus willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint its antenna structures to maintain good visibility in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structures #1052722 and #1052724. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure markings is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237728A1.html
      • 64. On March 5, 2003, Northland's cable system in Sandersville and Tennille, Georgia operated with a CLI value of 68.9. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 5, 2003, Northland Cable Properties VII, LP willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237729A1.html
      • the structure exceeded 200 feet in height.2 Therefore, Charter's antenna structure required Commission registration. From at least April 16 through May 8, 2003, Charter failed to register this antenna structure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Charter willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237735A1.html
      • 12, 2002, Pamal failed to notify the Commission of a change in ownership of its antenna structure #1054493. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pamal Broadcasting Ltd. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of its antenna structure #1054493. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g. failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237736A1.html
      • ASR, and FCC rules.3 On August 21, 2002, cables attached to the structure obstructed the paint over the entire height of the structure, resulting in poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ashley willfully4 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237737A1.html
      • and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On October 30, 2002, Mr. Brown operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 95.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Brown willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237738A1.html
      • license. On October 23, 2002, Patrick S. Green operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 100.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on October 23, 2002, Patrick S. Green willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237739A1.html
      • and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On December 6, 2002, Daniel Clephar operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 92.7 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Clephar willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237740A1.html
      • On November 23, 2002, Mr. Tori Javier Lipscomb operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 100.5 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 23, 2002, Tori Javier Lipscomb willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237742A1.html
      • AM antenna tower was not enclosed within an effective locked fence, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the structure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Power Country, Inc., willfully2 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of its AM antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237743A1.html
      • Donovan Jackson operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 102.1 MHz without benefit of the required Commission authorization. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 23, 2002 and January 15, 2003, Donald Donovan Jackson willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237744A1.html
      • a license. On October 30, 2002, Lovelock operated radio transmitting equipment at its business, the Rum Runner Caribbean Restaurant & Lounge, on the frequency 95.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Lovelock willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237745A1.html
      • do so. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 4, 2003, Alexandre Pierre Abelard aka Abelard Pierre willfully3 violated Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license and by failing to allow an inspection of his radio installation upon request by authorized Commission representatives. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000, and for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237746A1.html
      • at least one top mounted red flashing (L-864) obstruction light installed. The agents observed two single small red lights mounted on top of the structure. 8. Based on the evidence, we find that Unocal willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(g) and 17.23 of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number and maintain prescribed lighting. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting requirements is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number.8 The Commission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237754A1.html
      • found unlocked. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find East Texas Broadcasting willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules and willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure and failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around the base of the antenna. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amounts for the violations cited in this Notice are: $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration) and $7,000 for AM tower fencing. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237755A1.html
      • failed to maintain good visibility of his antenna structure number 1220001 located in Nacogdoches, Texas. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Martin D. Marshall willfully3 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237756A1.html
      • Commission registration, because its height exceeds 200 feet.2 For at least one year up through January 30, 2003, Ramsey failed to register its antenna supporting structure with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Ramsey willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna supporting structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237757A1.html
      • of the tower. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Renaissance Radio willfully7 and repeatedly8 violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS equipment, failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting, and failing to provide an effective locked fence around the base of the radiating antenna tower. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have operational EAS equipment is $8,000, for failure to comply with prescribed tower obstruction lighting is $10,000, and for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237758A1.html
      • contained no entries of EAS tests, activations or reasons for failures to conduct such tests during this period.3 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Petracom willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operational from at least October 16, 2002, until January 30, 2003. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237759A1.html
      • paint was dark and dull so that the bands were difficult to distinguish at approximately of a mile, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Leon's Radio willfully4 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint its antenna structure to maintain good visibility. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237767A1.html
      • transmissions occurred during ongoing transmissions by other authorized amateur radio stations, resulting in interference to those transmissions. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Kamm willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 97.101(d), 97.113(a)(4) and 97.119(a) of the Rules by causing intentional interference, broadcasting music and failing to identify with his station call sign. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for intentional interference is $7,000. The base forfeiture amount for failure to identify a station is $1,000. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's amateur radio rules regarding transmission of music. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.5 The rule that amateur stations
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237768A1.html
      • taking the steps necessary to properly maintain these systems prior to FCC notification.4 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find PCI willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise during the period of November 11-15, 2002, and on December 3, 2002. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000.00. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237769A1.html
      • the KCTE station authorization and Sections 73.1745(a) and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by operating on November 14, 15 & 16, 2002 with power and at times of operation not authorized by the KCTE station authorization, and by failing to make the public inspection files of both KCTE and WHB available to the public and the FCC. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000 and for public file violations the base forfeiture is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237770A1.html
      • the structure's paint. As a result of the faded paint and black cabling, the structure exhibited poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find AAT Communications Corporation willfully2 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint the antenna structure in accordance with the painting specifications associated with its antenna structure #1005728. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failure to repaint this structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237771A1.html
      • 2000 to January 23, 2003, The Helicon Group L.P. failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find The Helicon Group L.P. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission from January 2000 until January, 2003. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237772A1.html
      • 2003, January 13, 2003, January 28, 2003, and January 29, 2003. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Johnson willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules and the terms of the KLEY station authorization by failing to reduce power to 1 watt during nighttime operation of station KLEY on seven separate dates. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for overpower operation is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237773A1.html
      • and conduct such tests, and no entries showing EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair.2 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that from at least April 26, 2002 to January 30, 2003, Charter willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct the required monthly EAS tests. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required EAS tests (i.e., failure to make require measurements or conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237779A1.html
      • lighting2 and also failed to provide an acceptable method of monitoring the condition of the lights.3 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Barnacle Broadcasting willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on antenna structure 1063961 in Port Royal, South Carolina. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237781A1.html
      • medium intensity obstruction lighting was observed operating on Business Cell's antenna structure #1216842. Business Cell had not notified the FAA of the light outage.2 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Business Cell willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237782A1.html
      • required Commission registration. From at least September 25, 2001 to October 29, 2002, CB Radio's antenna structure used as part of Station WBEJ(AM) was not registered with the Commission. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find CB Radio willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000 (failure to file required forms or information). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237783A1.html
      • The operator on duty at the station stated that the fence had been in that condition for quite some time. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Casey Network, LLC, willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing the base of its antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237784A1.html
      • As of April 16, 2003, Palmetto had failed to register its antenna structure used as part of station WAIM. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Palmetto willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 11.61(a) and 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to conduct required EAS tests and by failing to register its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information to register the antenna structure is $3,000, and for failure to conduct EAS tests (i.e., failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring) is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237785A1.html
      • 2003, the Wanda Doonan Trust failed to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find the Wanda Doonan Trust willfully3and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237788A1.html
      • staff stated they had received numerous cards and letters during that time period. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Clinton Radio Company willfully9 and repeatedly10 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to make available all required contents of the public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount is $8,000 for non-operational EAS equipment, and $10,000 for violation of public inspection file rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237789A1.html
      • quarters of the year 2002 were not available in the pubic file at the time of inspection. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 30, 2003, Lebanon willfully6 violated Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to make available during regular business hours the complete public inspection file for station KTTK. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for violation of the public file rules.7 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``... the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237790A1.html
      • Communications Partners, LP failed to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Alliance Communications Partners, LP willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility of the antenna structure markings. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237791A1.html
      • hours on March 18, 2003, station employees could not produce the public file. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cornell willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1350(b)(2) of the Rules and willfully violated Section 73.3527(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain transmitter control and failing to make available the station's public file. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000, and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237792A1.html
      • 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find Air Paging Inc. willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 1.903(a), 90.403(f), and 90.425(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its Wireless Radio Station in accordance with the rules applicable to that service, continuously radiating an unmodulated carrier, and failing to identify its station by the assigned callsign. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for operation at an unauthorized location, $4,000 for unauthorized emissions, and $1,000 for failure to provide station identification. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237824A1.html
      • to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring regarding EAS monitoring sources, EAS tests, and observation of the antenna structure's lights; Sections 17.4(a) for failure to file required forms or information regarding the registration of the two antenna structures; and Section 17.51(a) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (?Forfeiture Policy Statement?)3, sets the base forfeiture amount at $1,000 for failing to maintain required records, $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring, $3,000 each (two towers) for failure to file required forms or information for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237825A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Sauer willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 97.101(d) for an amateur radio operator willfully or maliciously causing interference to radio communications; Section 97.113(a)(4) for transmitting music from his amateur radio station and Section 97.119(a) for failure to transmit the station identification of his amateur station. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for causing interference, $4,000 for transmitting unauthorized emissions and, $1,000 for failure to provide station identification. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237834A1.html
      • 31.70 MHz. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Mexicana Car and Limousine Services operated radio transmitting equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 31.70 MHz on September 20, 2002, October 2, 2002 and October 8, 2002, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237835A1.html
      • October 5, October 8, and October 12, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequency, 96.7 MHz, in Brooklyn, NY. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237836A1.html
      • in Bronx, NY. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Fernando Alejandro was responsible for the operation of radio transmission equipment on 95.1 MHz on September 20, 2002, and October 12, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (?Forfeiture Policy Statement?)4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237837A1.html
      • 30, 2002, no obstruction lighting was observed on Crown Castle's antenna structure #1037111. Crown Castle had not notified the FAA of the light outage.2 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Crown Castle willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to continuously exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting during daylight hours. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237838A1.html
      • boards had rotted through and collapsed. The station manager stated that the fence had been in that condition for quite some time. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Radio Centre, Inc., willfully2 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence enclosing the base of its antenna tower. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237839A1.html
      • of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting2 and failed to inspect the structure's lighting system for proper operation.3 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MCC Georgia LLC repeatedly4 and willfully5 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violation cited in this Notice is $10,000.6 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237841A1.html
      • in Brooklyn, NY. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Emmanuel Frederic was responsible for the operation of radio transmitting equipment on 89.7 MHz on November 1, 2002, and on 87.9 MHz on December 6, 2002, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237842A1.html
      • Signal, Test Script and EOM codes for the months of June 2002 and August 2002, and by failing to log entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of May 5, 2002 to May 18, 2002, and August 4, 2002 to August 24, 2002. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237843A1.html
      • of August 4-10, 2002, September 8-14, 2002, September 15-21, 2002, September 22-28, 2002, and October 13-19, 2002, and log entries of reasons why required monthly and weekly EAS tests were not received for the month of August 2002, and for the weeks of August 4-10, 2002, and October 20-26, 2002. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237844A1.html
      • of August 2002, September 2002, and October 2002, and log entries of reasons why required monthly and weekly EAS tests were not received for the months of August 2002, September 2002, and October 2002, for the week of September 1-7, 2002, and from September 15, 2002 to October 12, 2002. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237845A1.html
      • July 1 to September 7, 2002, and September 15-21, 2002, and by failing to log entries indicating reasons why required monthly EAS tests were not received for the months of July 2002 and August, 2002, and weekly EAS tests were not received from July 1, 2002 to September 14, 2002. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237846A1.html
      • radio transmission equipment on 91.9 MHz on November 26, 2002, without a Commission authorization in willful2 violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequency, 91.9 MHz, in Elizabeth, NJ. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')3, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237847A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Church operated a base station on an unauthorized frequency of 36.08 MHz, and mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 36.12 MHz on January 23, 2003 and January 24, 2003, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237848A1.html
      • and EOM codes for the weeks of November 10-23, 2002, December 15, 2002-January 4, 2003, and January 12-25, 2003, and failing to log entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of November 10-23, 2002, December 15, 2002-January 4, 2003, and January 12-25, 2003. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237849A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hip Hop was responsible for the operation of radio transmission equipment on 1710 kHz on January 9, 10, 29, and 30, 2003, and February 27, 2003, without a Commission authorization in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237850A1.html
      • the base station operating on 151.605 MHz. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Joslyn Gordon operated a base station on an unauthorized frequency of 151.605 MHz on April 2, April 3, and April 9, 2003, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237851A1.html
      • MHz. Agents observed mobile units operating on 151.635 MHz. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Fransisco Peralta operated mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 151.635 MHz on May 1, 2003 and May 2, 2003, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237855A1.html
      • of the transmitting antenna will be a term of the station authorization. Between March 17, 1998 and October 15, 2002, BLCI operated aural broadcast auxiliary station WHS405 at an unauthorized location. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that BLCI willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 74.532(e) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for operating a station at an unauthorized location at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237856A1.html
      • Parkview House, 700 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island, New York. The license for station WPTM988 authorizes NYRS to operate a radio transmitter on the frequency 452.000 MHz at 1633 Broadway, New York. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NYRS willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237857A1.html
      • and on October 3, 2002 between 7:20 p.m. and 7:45 p.m., Urban Radio of Pennsylvania, LLC., failed to exhibit the red obstruction lighting on the WURP antenna structure. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Urban willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 17.47(a)(1), 17.48(a), and 17.51(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, for failure to file required forms or information at $3,000, and for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237858A1.html
      • Corp. stated in response to a follow-up letter to them that Statcom was not authorized to relocate their transmitter from the licensed location of Todt Hill in Staten Island, New York. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Statcom willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for operation of each radio system at an unauthorized location at $4,000 and for operation on an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237859A1.html
      • the Commission under the provisions of this part. On January 14, 2003, Dominic DeNaples operated radio communications equipment on the unauthorized frequency 154.515 MHz, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dominic DeNaples willfully2 violated Sections 1.903(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),3 sets the base forfeiture for operating on an unauthorized frequency at four thousand dollars ($4,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237860A1.html
      • 2002 and July 16, 2002, between August 4, 2002 and August 17, 2002, between October 13, 2002 and October 26, 2002, between November 17, 2002 and December 3, 2002. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pentecostal willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 11.61(a)(1)(v), and 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237881A1.html
      • explaining why the EAS tests were not received, or any indication that the station's chief operator or other personnel attempted to identify the source of any problem with the EAS equipment. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WEMG willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237882A1.html
      • coordinates of the tower as approximately N 45 27 41, W 98 20 15. No tower registration exists at or near those coordinates that match the physical description of the tower. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Northern willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register the tower. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')6, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237907A1.html
      • were not enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 20, 2002, Mega willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to provide an effective locked fence or other enclosure around all their antenna structures. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') 4,,sets the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations at $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237908A1.html
      • 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Great Northern Radio L.L.C. failed to maintain the required management and staff presence at the main studio of WVAY during normal business hours on November 20 and 21, 2002 in willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),8 sets the base forfeiture amount at $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237913A1.html
      • to discontinue painting and lighting specifications shown on their authorization. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tennessee Gas willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules by failing to properly register their tower, and by failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information, and at $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237914A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that NCR willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 17.4(a), 17.4(g), and 17.50 of the rules by failing to properly register the tower, failing to post the ASR number at the base of the antenna, and failing to repaint the tower to maintain good visibility. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking requirements. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules5 does not establish a base
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237916A1.html
      • as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. At the time of the inspection, WQRK's antenna structure's paint was severely faded and the bands of paint were not distinguishable, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. 6. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. 7. Based on the evidence
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237917A1.html
      • specifies that antenna structures must be cleaned and repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. At the time of the inspection, Taylor's antenna structure was severely faded, resulting in poor visibility of the structure. 6. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. 7. Based on the evidence
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237918A1.html
      • exposed. 6. Section 17.57 requires the owner of a Registered Antenna Structure to immediately notify the Commission of any change in ownership information. At the time of inspection, the tower was registered to a previous owner. 7. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 and repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules. 8. Based on the evidence
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237973A1.html
      • to November 13, 2002, and November 14, 2002 of his responsibility to properly measure, adjust and maintain his broadcast station to avoid subsequent violations of Section 301 of the Act. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clay apparently willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,6 which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237974A1.html
      • of December 2002 and January 2003, by failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from December 2002 to January 2003, and by failing to maintain the required records by verifying that the station has been operating as required, by the chief operator in writing. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),6 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and for failure to maintain the required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237975A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that JMK willfully4 violated Sections 1.89, 73.49, and 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence, failing to enclose the antenna structure in an effective locked fence, and failing to have a meaningful staff and management presence at the main studio. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amounts at $4,000 for failure to reply to Commission correspondence, $7,000 for failure to enclose the antenna in an effective locked fence, and $7,000 for failure to have a meaningful management and staff
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238353A1.html
      • 11.35(a), 11.52(d), 17.4(a), and 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to determine the cause of failure to transmit receive the required EAS tests or activations and make the appropriate log entries, failing to monitor two EAS sources, failing to register the antenna structure, and failing to maintain the authorized operating power. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain required records at $1,000, failure to make the required measurements or conduct the required monitoring at $2,000, failure to file required forms or information at $3,000 and exceeding
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238358A1.html
      • recent ownership report. The station's Director of Broadcasting Operations stated that the current ownership report was on his desk in Overland Park, Kansas. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain all required material in the station's public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for public file rule violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238364A1.html
      • April 22 and 23, 2003, WLTC operated with daytime power after sunset until 8:16 p.m. and 9:10 p.m., respectively. Further, WLTC operated with excessive output power in the daytime mode on April 24, 2003. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Neely repeatedly2 violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating with unauthorized power. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized power operation is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 4 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238365A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find RJM willfully9 and repeatedly10 violated Sections 73.1125 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at its main studio, exceeding authorized nighttime operating power, and failing to make available the public inspection file during regular business hours. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000, for exceeding authorized operating power is $4,000 and for violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238453A1.html
      • of 70.9. Furthermore, based on AT&T Broadband's discovery of over 75 additional signal leaks in excess of the basic signal leakage criteria, the CLI value exceeded 74. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 7 and 8, 2002, AT&T Broadband willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238567A1.html
      • the antenna tower for station KAOK(AM) was not enclosed within an effective fence or other enclosure. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pittman Broadcasting willfully3 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to provide an effective locked fence enclosing the station's antenna tower. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238568A1.html
      • violated Section 17.57 of the Commission's Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of these structures. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Tecnet willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership of antenna structures. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238569A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find Williams willfully2 violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to enclose the station's antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure and failing to make most documents required to be in the station's pubic inspection file available for inspection during regular business hours. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,3 the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238675A1.html
      • bases. Statements by WRXB personnel indicated this condition had existed for at least a month prior. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Metropolitan Radio Group of Florida, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of three antenna towers. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238742A1.html
      • Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this transmitter on the frequency 157.740 MHz from Morgantown and Clarksburg, WV. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cell Page willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount at $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238985A1.html
      • ASR, and FCC rules.3 On August 21, 2002, cables attached to the structure obstructed the paint over the entire height of the structure, resulting in poor visibility. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ashley willfully4 violated Section 17.50 of the Commission's Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238986A1.html
      • accordance with the Act and with a license. On November 4, 2002, Brian N. Bloom operated radio-transmitting equipment on the frequency 93.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Brian N. Bloom willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238987A1.html
      • and in accordance with the Act and with a license. On October 31, 2002, Mr. Ebanks operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 93.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Ebanks willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238988A1.html
      • a license. On October 30, 2002, Lovelock operated radio transmitting equipment at its business, the Rum Runner Caribbean Restaurant & Lounge, on the frequency 95.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Lovelock willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238989A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find RJM willfully9 and repeatedly10 violated Sections 73.1125 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules, and willfully violated Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at its main studio, exceeding authorized nighttime operating power, and failing to make available the public inspection file during regular business hours. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000, for exceeding authorized operating power is $4,000 and for violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238990A1.html
      • agents to conduct an inspection of the radio station upon official requests. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 6, 2003, Ward F. Dean willfully3 violated Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license and by refusing to allow inspection of his radio station. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without a Commission authorization is $10,000, and for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238991A1.html
      • 64. On April 9 and 10, 2003, Suwannee Cable TV's cable system in Fanning Springs and Old Town, Florida operated with a CLI value of 72.7. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 9 and 10, 2003, Suwannee Cable TV willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the violations cited in this notice is $8,000 (violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies).6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-238992A1.html
      • Cc:Mr. David P. Pace, Jr. d.b.a. Pacetronics Pace Marketing P.O. Box 631207 Nacogdoches, TX 75963 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238992A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238992A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239072A1.html
      • EOM code from December 2002 to April 2003, failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from December 1, 2002 to May 10, 2003, and failing to log entries of reasons why required monthly EAS tests were not received from December 2002 to April 2003. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239074A1.html
      • intermediate levels of the structure during all phases of construction.6 In addition, Media General failed to immediately notify the FAA of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting.7 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Media General willfully8 and repeatedly9 violated Section 17.51 of the Rules by failing to exhibit the required obstruction lighting. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239292A1.html
      • Ridge Road and KY-59, approximately 4.2 miles northwest of Olive Hill, Kentucky, and at 3311 Happy Ridge Road, Ashland, Kentucky, were not registered. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that FrontierVision has willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failure to register its antenna structures. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')6, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239297A1.html
      • and property. Not only is harmful interference caused to a vital safety frequency, but a false activation could possibly obscure genuine distress transmissions. Tracking down such interference also places a strain on valuable resources of the safety and rescue agencies. Failure to comply with 47 C.F.R. 80.89(a) may result in the imposition of a monetary forfeiture, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.80, or other administrative sanctions. 4. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.89, that Cliff Cassity shall, within 14 days of the release date indicated above, submit a written statement concerning this matter to the following address: Federal Communications Commission P. O. Box 971030 Waipahu, HI 96797-1030 The response shall contain a statement of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239919A1.html
      • in accordance with the Act and with a license. On July 23, 2003, Mr. Upson operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.7 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Upson willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-239920A1.html
      • two EAS sources specified in the State EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. On February 7, 2002, and on April 14, 2003, station WROD failed to monitor its assigned EAS sources. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gove- Overgaard repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 11.52(d) of the Rules by failing to monitor assigned EAS sources. 6. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules4 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at $2,000 for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring (e.g., failure to monitor EAS sources). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-240647A1.html
      • KKAC's main studio in Vandalia, Missouri maintained no staff or management presence during normal business hours. On each day, the main studio was locked and unoccupied. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Twenty-One willfully6 and repeatedly7 violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at its main studio. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,8 the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (?Act?), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-240649A1.html
      • Code.7 Please be advised that if you choose not to respond to this Citation and a forfeiture is issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) & 2.815(b) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 5 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 6 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 7 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240649A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240649A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-240989A1.html
      • Code.7 Please be advised that if you choose not to respond to this Citation and a forfeiture is issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) & 2.815(b) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 5 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 6 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 7 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240989A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240989A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242441A1.html
      • antenna structure 1217391 in accordance with its registration requirements. In addition, Vector failed to notify the FAA immediately of the improper functioning of the structure's lighting2. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Vector willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all required obstruction lights on structure 1217391. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting is $10,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242442A1.html
      • station license and antenna tower registration. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blountstown willfully3 violated Section 11.35, 73.49 and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operation of the EAS equipment, failing to enclose the base of the antenna system in a fence and failing to make available a complete public file. 8. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules4 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at $8,000 for EAS violations, $7,000 for tower fencing violations and $10,000 for public file violations. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242619A1.html
      • 2003. 6. Section 17.51(a) of the Rules requires red obstruction lighting be exhibited from sunset to sunrise. WLTH failed to exhibit the required lights on its antenna structure from February 14, 2003 to March 12, 2003. 7. The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act'')2 as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Rules.3 A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully4 or repeatedly5 failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Forfeiture amounts are decided in accordance with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act6 and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules.7 8. Based on the evidence
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242620A1.html
      • or lighting requirements be registered with the Commission. Painting and lighting requirements had been assigned to Comcast's antenna structure, requiring registration with the Commission.4 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Comcast willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')7, sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242621A1.html
      • we find that Ivette operated a base station on the unauthorized frequency of 151.635 MHz on May 16, May19, and May 20 2003, and mobile units on the unauthorized frequency of 155.635 MHz on May19, and May 20, 2003, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242622A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Star operated a base station and mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 451.500 MHz on January 7, 2003, and 151.845 MHz on, April 30, 2003 and May 2, 2003, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242623A1.html
      • MHz. Agents observed the repeater station operating on 473.175 MHz. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Forest operated radio transmission equipment on an unauthorized frequency of 473.173 MHz on June 17 and June 23, 2003, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242624A1.html
      • and EOM code for the months of January 2003 and March 2003, and by failing to conduct required weekly tests of the EAS header and EOM codes from January 5, 2003 to February 22, 2003, from March 23 to April 5, 2003, and from April 27 to May 31, 2003. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242819A1.html
      • AM broadcast station KBRN. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find PAULINO willfully9 violated Sections 73.1125, 11.35(a), and 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a main studio in the community of license, failing to maintain installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment, and failing to make available a public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000, for failing to have installed and operational EAS sending and receiving equipment is $8,000, and violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-242821A1.html
      • station KUOL or SM Radio, Inc., in San Marcos, TX. A telephone number was obtained for station KUOL on December 16, 2003, however the telephone number was disconnected or not in service. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find SM willfully7 violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,8 the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243041A1.html
      • station license lists antenna structure painting and lighting requirements. As of the date of this Notice, Louisa still has not registered the antenna structure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Louisa willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17(4)(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amounts at $3,000 for failure to file the required forms or information (e.g. failure to register the antenna structure). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243042A1.html
      • entries of reasons why required weekly EAS tests were not received for the weeks of December 1, 2002 to January 25, 2003, February 23, 2003 to March 8, 2003, March 30, 2003 to April 5, 2003, April 13-19, 2003, April 27, 2003 to May 3, 2003, and May 11-24, 2003. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000 ($2,000 for each of Kimtron's two radio stations), and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000 ($1,000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243043A1.html
      • LOI, Citadel acknowledges that they were aware of, and responsible for, the gates being unlocked since the last week of September, 2003. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Citadel willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the station's antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for violations involving AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243044A1.html
      • LRB Cc:Mr. Jonathan Edward Stone d.b.a. Omnitronics Pacetronics 4430 State Hwy 315 Carthage, TX 75633 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243044A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243044A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243467A1.html
      • willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequencies 452.250 MHz and 457.250 MHz without a valid FCC authorization, Section 90.210 and 90.403(e) by transmitting spurious emissions resulting in interference to an amateur radio station and Section 90.425(a) by failing to transmit the station identification. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement),5 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000, for causing interference is $7,000 and for failing to provide station identification is $1,000. Accordingly, the total base forfeiture in this instance is $12,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-243468A1.html
      • of 2003 that the structure would be registered. Yet to date, the antenna structure has not been registered. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Redwood apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')11 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,12 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244158A1.html
      • exceeded 200 feet in height. Therefore, Eagle Broadcasting's three antenna structures required Commission registration. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Eagle Broadcasting, Inc. repeatedly3 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its three antenna structures with the Commission since at least January 1, 2003 until at least December 5, 2003. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4)4 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to register the antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D)5 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244159A1.html
      • the structure's lighting.4 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Exosphere Broadcasting, LLC repeatedly5 and willfully6 violated Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to maintain good visibility of the required antenna structure obstruction marking and by failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure lighting and/or markings is $10,000.7 Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244160A1.html
      • 461.200 MHz, and is not authorized to operate a transmitter at Iolani Court Plaza, 2499 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rainbow Honolulu repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on an unauthorized frequency and operating at an unauthorized location. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')6, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. Accordingly, the total base forfeiture in this instance is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244165A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find Moody willfully8 and repeatedly9 violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full time managerial presence at station KMDY and we find that Moody willfully violated Section 73.3527(c) by failing to make available for public inspection during regular business hours the complete public inspection file. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rules is $7,000.00 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000.00. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244166A1.html
      • January 5 and 6, 2004, WFNO exceeded nighttime power limits and operated at night with daytime directional parameters. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find WFNO willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1745 of the Rules by operating at times, or with modes or power, other than those specified and made part of the license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000. In addition, the base forfeiture amount for operating with excessive power is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244167A1.html
      • equipment on the frequency 102.1 MHz and on August 21, 2003 he once again operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 87.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Simon repeatedly5 and willfully6 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244168A1.html
      • in accordance with the Act and with a license. On October 24, 2003, Mr. Alsbrooks operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.3 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Alsbrooks willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244169A1.html
      • Act and with a license. On September 24, 2003, Mr. Green operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on September 24, 2003, Mr. Green willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244170A1.html
      • Act and with a license. On March 5, 2003, Mr. Feldman operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 91.9 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 5, 2003, Mr. Feldman willfully3 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244171A1.html
      • our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R, 95.603(c), 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 12 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244171A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244171A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244895A1.html
      • required information. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WKLC, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), 73.3526(e)(5) and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment properly installed and working, by exceeding power limits, and for failure to maintain records in the public file. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amounts at $8,000 for failure to comply with the rules relating to the installation and operability of EAS equipment, $4,000 for exceeding power limits and $10,000 for failure to comply with the public
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244896A1.html
      • on September 22, 2003 and September 27, 2003, without a Commission authorization, in violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequencies, 96.1 MHz or 96.5 MHz in Bronx, NY. 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244897A1.html
      • received for the months of December 2002, January 2003, March 2003, and April 2003, and state reasons why EAS tests were not received, failing to maintain station records of required weekly EAS tests received for the week of January 5-11, 2003, and state reasons why EAS tests were not received. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $4,000 ($1,000 for each of Capital Media's four radio stations, WHAZ, WBAR-FM, WMYY, and WMNV). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244898A1.html
      • transmitting equipment on the Two-Meter Amateur Radio Service frequency 145.8376 MHz. Neither Best Wok nor any of its employees held a license to operate a station in the Amateur Radio Service Band. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Best Wok willfully2 violated Section 301 of the Act. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),3 sets the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmitting equipment without a license at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,4
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244899A1.html
      • with a license. On November 4, 2003 and January 15, 2004, Mr. Louis operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 89.5 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Louis willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244900A1.html
      • main studio location. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Rama willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules for failure to have the EAS transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation, and failure to make available upon request the entire public inspection file during regular business hours. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, and for failure to maintain required records in the public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244974A1.html
      • 11, 2003 to August 9, 2003, and August 24-30, 2003, and failing to log required entries of reasons why weekly EAS tests were not transmitted for the weeks of March 9-29, 2003, April 13, 2003 to May 3, 2003, May 11, 2003 to August 9, 2003, and August 24-30, 2003. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),5 sets the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring at $2,000, and base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records at $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244975A1.html
      • Parkway operated a base station and mobile units on a frequency of 155.265 MHz on September 3, September 4, and September 5, 2003; and on a frequency of 157.490 MHz on January 2, January 7 and January 8, 2004, in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,5 which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244979A1.html
      • signal on its assigned frequency of 1.340 MHz. Station logs contained no entries showing EAS equipment had been removed from service for repair.2 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find WBLB repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have its EAS transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') transmitting functions available during times the station is in operation is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244980A1.html
      • reflected Heart of Citrus, Inc. as the current owner of antenna structure 1027884. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find WGUL willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1027884 and failing to immediately notify the Commission upon any change in ownership information. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit red obstruction lighting is $10,000. The base amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244981A1.html
      • were not enclosed within an effective locked fence, allowing unrestricted access to the base of the structures. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., repeatedly2 and willfully3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of its AM antenna towers. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain effective locked AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244982A1.html
      • Big Island Radio repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly and monthly EAS tests, and failing to determine the cause of the failures to receive the required EAS tests and log the reasons why the EAS tests were not received. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring timely retransmission of the monthly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-244983A1.html
      • transmitting equipment without a license after multiple warnings. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Michael David Oaks willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitting equipment without a license on June 9, 2003, July 14, 2003, and September 16, 2003. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement),9 and Section 1.80 of the Commission Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-245203A1.html
      • violated the Great Lakes Agreement and Sections 80.953(a) and 80.953(b) of the Commission's Rules as a result of their vessel the ``West Harbor'' having navigated the Great Lakes on September 10 and September 13, 2003 without having had their radiotelephone installation inspected and certified as required by the Great Lakes Agreement. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')5, sets the statutory maximum amount forfeiture at five hundred fifty dollars ($550) per day for violation of Great Lakes Agreement. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the downward adjustment factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-245204A1.html
      • missing including five quarterly issues and programs lists. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find Citadel willfully10 and repeatedly11 violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the station's main studio and failing to make available for inspection all required material in the station's public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,12 the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-245205A1.html
      • complete public inspection file for co-located stations WWDR/WDLZ. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find First Media Radio, LLC willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Sections 73.1560(a)(1) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules for operating in excess of authorized power at WWDR, and for failing to make available the complete public inspection file at WWDR and WDLZ. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for operating in excess of authorized power is $4000 and the amount for violation of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-245206A1.html
      • 2003, October 14, 2003, and until January 20, 2004, AT&T Wireless failed to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on structure 1030401 in accordance with its registration requirements. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find AT&T Wireless willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit tower lights on structure 1030401. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to exhibit obstruction lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-245208A1.html
      • February 3, 2004, until at least March 12, 2004, FFP failed to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Florida Food Products, Inc. willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register with the Commission its antenna structure located at Eustis, Florida. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules, 5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to register an antenna structure (failure to file required forms or information) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246119A1.html
      • file material was not made available for inspection during regular business hours at the KUOT-CA (formerly KKCC-LP) main studio. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find EICB willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to make available for inspection all of the required material in the station's public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246120A1.html
      • KAWV began operation in August of 2002. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find O'Hana Radio Partners willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to have EAS equipment installed and operational from August 2002, until July 1, 2003. 1. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),9 and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. Accordingly, the total base forfeiture for failing to have operational EAS equipment for station KAWV is $8,000. 7. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246121A1.html
      • willful and repeated violation of Section 308(b) of the Act, Section 333 of the Act, Section 97.101(d) and 97.101(b) of the Rules by failing to respond to Commission correspondence and causing malicious interference and transmitting signals in an attempt to exclusively use a frequency. 17. The base forfeiture amount set by The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),9 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,10 for failure to respond to Commission correspondence is $4,000 and causing interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,11 which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246122A1.html
      • received or to note problems or malfunctions of the EAS equipment. Based on the evidence before us, we find Concord repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required EAS tests. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.12 The requirement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246123A1.html
      • at 16743B D Street, Victorville, on the frequency 91.3 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 14. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mayo willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 660 kHz and 91.3 MHz. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement),11 and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules,12 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act13 which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246124A1.html
      • structure would be registered. As of February 3, 2004, the antenna structure had not been registered. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dead Air apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure with the Commission. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246125A1.html
      • IL 60068-1460 Federal Communications Commission Second Floor 520 NE Colbern Rd Lee's Summit, MO 64086 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246125A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246125A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246336A1.html
      • January 8 and 13, 2004, Mr. Simon operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 87.6 MHz without the required Commission authorization. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on January 8 and 13, 2004, Mr. Simon willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Rules,6 the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246337A1.html
      • as required by Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find Sunbelt repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required monthly EAS tests. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.10 The requirement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246338A1.html
      • 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find Moon Broadcasting repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 11.61(a)(1) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly and weekly EAS tests and failing to determine the cause of failures to receive required monthly and weekly EAS tests. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore, we must determine an appropriate forfeiture amount for this violation.11 The requirement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-246339A1.html
      • issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b) 4 See 47 C.F.R, 95.603(c), 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 8 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 9 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 10 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246339A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246339A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248150A1.html
      • FCC Form 854 upon any change in structure height or change in ownership information. The tower was registered to NYNEX at the time of the light outage 16. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 17.48, 17.49, 17.51, and 17.57 of the Rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporated the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount at $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information (two counts, FAA and FCC), $1000 for failure maintain required records, and $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248151A1.html
      • since antenna installation on March 27, 2002. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jarad willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating with an excessive antenna height, thereby failing to operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the authorized antenna height at $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248152A1.html
      • since antenna installation on December 22, 2002. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jarad willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating with an excessive antenna height, thereby failing to operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the authorized antenna height at $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248153A1.html
      • further appears that unlicensed operation on 97.9 MHz occurred on more than one day; thus, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that A-O willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 97.9 MHz.14 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for this service is $10,000.15 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248154A1.html
      • to this notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment.12 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Fred L. Broce District Director, Atlanta Office _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.409(a), 95.655(a) &2.925(a) 5 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 6 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 9 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 10 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 11 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 12 See U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248154A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248154A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248244A1.html
      • installed on the gate when it was replaced a month prior to re-inspection. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Beacon Broadcasting, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the station's antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without AM tower fencing at $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248245A1.html
      • 302 of the Act4 and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Paladen willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules by offering for sale CB linear amplifiers on February 24, 2004. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')7, sets the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment at seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248246A1.html
      • 2003, January 6, 2004, and January 17, 2004, without a Commission authorization in willful2 and repeated3 violation of Section 301 of the Act. A review of Commission's records showed that there was no evidence of a Commission authorization to operate this station on the frequency 87.9 MHz in Linden, NJ. 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')4, sets the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization at $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act5, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248247A1.html
      • more than one day; thus it is repeated. 7.Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 8, 2003, and June 9, 2003, Mallard willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules by operating a cable system in violation of signal leakage standards. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000.15 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248248A1.html
      • operation at more than the 105% operating power appears to have occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RBC repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(b) by exceeding the STA authorized power limits for stations KOBB-FM and KZLO-FM. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),17 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,18 the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location is $4000. Also, according to Section 1.80, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248613A1.html
      • of 154.490 MHz. Agents observed mobile units operating on 159.950 MHz. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, Caprice willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating mobile units on February 4, 2004, and February 5, 2004, on an unauthorized frequency of 159.950 MHz. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. Denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),4 sets the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency at $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248614A1.html
      • indistinguishable at a distance of one-fourth of a mile from the structure and resulting in poor visibility of the structure's obstruction markings. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Andrews Tower willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint antenna structure number 1058251 to maintain good visibility. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed antenna structure markings is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-248615A1.html
      • hours at the WDIN main studio. 12. Based on the evidence before us, we find HQ willfully15 and repeatedly16 violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain a presence at the station's main studio and failing to make available for inspection all of the required materials in the station's public inspection file. 13. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,17 the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249189A1.html
      • WHNC and WCBQ. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find TPN willfully6 and repeatedly7 violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain required EAS equipment and by failing to make available for inspection the complete public inspection file(s), at WHNC and WCBQ. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,8 the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS equipment is $8,000 and the amount for violation of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249191A1.html
      • action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.7 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 U.S.C. 302a(b), 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a), 15.209. 347 C.F.R. 2.925. 447 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 547 C.F.R. 401, 501, 503 and 510. 6P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 718 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249191A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249191A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249273A1.html
      • violation has occurred on more than one day, thus, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ackerley willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure #1040111. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249274A1.html
      • at least ``approximately four years until the present.''19 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Northwest repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to conform to the FAA's dual lighting requirements as set forth in the FAA Notice for antenna structure # 1023331. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000.20 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249275A1.html
      • issued, your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R, 95.603(c), 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 8 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 9 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 10 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249275A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249275A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249276A1.html
      • action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.7 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 U.S.C. 302a(b), 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a), 15.209. 347 C.F.R. 2.925. 447 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 547 C.F.R. 401, 501, 503 and 510. 6P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 718 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249276A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249276A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-249516A1.html
      • to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.6 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 18.115(a). 347 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 447 C.F.R. 401, 501, 503 and 510. 5P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 618 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249516A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249516A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-250101A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find Konarz willfully8 and repeatedly9 violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment, operating with excessive power and failing to discontinue operation at sunset, and failing to make available for inspection all of the required materials in the station's public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,10 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for operation with excessive power and failure to discontinue operation after sunset is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-250102A1.html
      • May 12 and 13, 2004, WROX(AM)'s antenna structure was not enclosed by an effective locked fence or enclosure. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find Delta willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to maintain effective fencing around its antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-250390A1.html
      • 1.7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Farmworker, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) and (e) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio and failing to maintain a local phone number in its community of license or a toll-free number. 1.8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements, is $7,000.13 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-251001A1.html
      • Brandon Smith Mr. John Jackson d.b.a. Wholesale CB Radio 1032 Birch Sand Springs, OK 74063 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251001A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-251001A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-251489A1.html
      • not among those frequencies. Prolink acknowledged to a Commission field agent that it intentionally used the unlicensed frequency because of interference problems with other channels. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Prolink willfully violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on an unauthorized frequency. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-251831A1.html
      • that Snow Hill willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(6), 73.3526(e)(8), 73.3526(e)(9), and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Commission's Rules by failing to retain in its public inspection file a political file, ``The Public and Broadcasting'' manual, letters and e-mail from the public, and any quarterly issues/programs lists for 2003. . 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the public inspection file rules is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252185A1.html
      • than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Venture willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.947 and 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to obtain Commission approval prior to relocating and operating microwave STL stations WPNJ965, WPTM693, WPTC301 and WNTR571. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each incident of construction or operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000.10 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252523A1.html
      • we find that the Capstar willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the RFR MPE limits for the general public in a publicly accessible area and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing an area that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. 16. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')26 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.27 However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules.28 17. We propose
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252867A1.html
      • antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lotus repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, 17.48, and 17.49 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1015922. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000.19 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252868A1.html
      • before us, we find that Morongo Basin Broadcasting Corporation repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the station was in operation. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, 12 sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-252869A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Three D Radio repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules by failing to conduct required monthly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the stations were in operation. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 sets the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's Rules requiring EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be for this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-253039A1.html
      • around November 30, 1998. However, Shadavrus did not notify the Commission of this change in ownership until March 10, 2004. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Shadavrus willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify immediately the Commission upon a change in ownership information for an antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, requires us to take into account ``...the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-253692A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Hi-Favor repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to conduct required weekly EAS tests, and by failing to ensure that the monitoring and transmitting functions of EAS equipment was available during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),11 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the Commission's rule requiring transmission of the weekly EAS tests. Therefore we must determine what an appropriate amount should be for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-253693A1.html
      • Massie, Jr. H and Y Electrical Supply Company, Inc. P.O. Box 39322 Louisville, KY 40233 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253693A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253693A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254041A1.html
      • Mr. Jason F. Lawrence Total Communications CB Radio Trader 1210 Battles Rd Wilburton, OK 74578 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254041A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254041A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254042A1.html
      • Communications Commission 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1215 Tampa, FL 33607-2356 Resident agents Miami, FL _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254042A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254042A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254043A1.html
      • is punishable by fine or imprisonment.12 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent Houston Office Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 Id. See also 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1), 2.803(a)(2). 4 47 U.S.C. 301 5 See 47 C.F.R. 15.1 et seq 6 Id. 7 47 C.F.R. 15.5(b) 8 47 U.S.C. 333 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 47 C.F.R. 15.209 11 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 12 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254043A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254043A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254256A1.html
      • immediately upon notification of a violation. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jean L. Senatus willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 96.1 MHz on April 7, 2004, and April 17, 2004, without a Commission authorization. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254257A1.html
      • equipment without the required Commission authorization on frequency 95.3 MHz. . 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Gentile willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on the frequency 107.7 MHz in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 6, 2004. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio transmitter without a valid authorization is $10,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254258A1.html
      • in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.8 9. Please direct any questions regarding this matter to Reuben Jusino at XXX XXX-XXXX or XXX XXX-XXXX. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent-San Juan Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 U.S.C. 302a(b). 347 C.F.R. 2.803(a). 447 C.F.R. 2.925. 547 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 647 C.F.R. 401, 501, 503 and 510. 7P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 818 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254258A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254258A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254259A1.html
      • Clay Allen Thompson d.b.a. Clay's Little Radio Shop 3972 Lazy Bend Rd. Millsap, TX 76066-3823 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254259A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254259A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254542A1.html
      • Communications, Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1),and 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to enclose the WYLF tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure and failing to insure WYLF was operating at the authorized modes of power specified and made part of the license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303(1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules4, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254543A1.html
      • Broadcasting Network Inc. willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1125 of the Rules by failing to have installed the required EAS equipment and for not maintaining the station's studio within its community of license, within the principal community contour or within twenty-five miles from the reference coordinates of the center of its community of license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to have installed the required EAS equipment is eight thousand dollars ($8,000) and for main studio violations is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). 8. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-254544A1.html
      • to know which frequencies he is permitted to operate on. The frequency 297.530 MHz is not one of those frequencies. However, Silva continually operated on the frequency 297.530 MHz without authorization. Therefore, Silva's violation was willful. His violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.17 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255040A1.html
      • monitoring capabilities during the time the stations are in operation. On February 6, 2003, Southern had no EAS equipment installed at station WENA-AM. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find Southern willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to have installed equipment capable of monitoring and transmitting the EAS system. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failing to have installed EAS equipment is $8000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255041A1.html
      • delay in this case has compromised the Bureau's ability to respond to the complaints presented in an effective, appropriate and timely manner. Accordingly, we find Mr. Westcott apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,13 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,14 Paul D. Westcott, is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond in writing to Commission correspondence. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release of this NOTICE
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255042A1.html
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gerritsen willfully and repeatedly violated Section 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the radio communications of authorized users of the Amateur Radio Service. 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for causing interference to licensed stations is $7,000.27 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255233A1.html
      • in the license the FCC issues to the station. TCB operated its radio station WBRG with daytime power during the evening of February 27, 2002, and during pre-sunrise on February 28, 2002. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find TCB, willfully2 and repeatedly3 violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating with excessive power. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for excessive power operation is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255235A1.html
      • pieces of equipment were FCC Certified. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Halifax willfully6 and repeatedly7 violated Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to install and maintain EAS equipment and operating overpower with a non-certified transmitter from an unauthorized location. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,8 the base forfeiture amounts are as follows: failure to install EAS equipment, $8,000; use of unauthorized equipment, $5,000; exceeding power limits, $4,000; and construction or operation at an unauthorized location, $4,000.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255236A1.html
      • day, therefore, it is repeated. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ACS willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in the ownership information for Antenna Structure Registration (``ASR'') numbers #1022129 and #1006025. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255237A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and by failing to notify FAA regarding the on-going light outage on antenna structure 1019797 in Knik, Alaska as required. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. The base amount for failing to file required information is $3000. We find that failing to notify the FAA of an outage constitutes a failure to file required
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255238A1.html
      • find Coleman willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and (e), 73.1740(a)(1) and 73.1745(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain main studios, local or toll-free telephone numbers, and minimum operating schedules, for both KAXX and KADX, and for departing, without authorization, from the terms of the stations' authorizations. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain a main studio and a toll-free phone numbers is $7,000 per station, total for this violation is $14,000 and; for failing to maintain a minimum broadcast schedule and unauthorized discontinuance of operation is $5000 per
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255239A1.html
      • Communications Commission Park Ridge Office Center, Suite 306 1550 Northwest Highway Park Ridge, IL 60068-1460 _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c) & 2.803 5 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 6 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 7 47 C.F.R. 2.815(c) 8 47 C.F.R. 2.815(b) 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 10 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 11 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 12 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 13 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255239A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255239A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255477A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Schikora and the Horner Trust willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure #1005017. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255478A1.html
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Butterfield willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the KULE AM antenna tower within an effective enclosed fence. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000.7 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255963A1.html
      • Mail Return Receipt Requested and First Class U.S. Mail to Gene A. Fricke, 102 East Hollis Street, APT 4A, Nashua, NH 03060 FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis Loria District Director Boston Office _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a) 5 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 7 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 8 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 9 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 10 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255963A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255963A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255966A1.html
      • after August 17, 2004, more than a month after their first oral warning. Thus, we find that Entravision also apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by producing power density levels in excess of its occupational limit and failing to warn adequately workers of the RFR hazard. 15. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')16 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.17 However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules.18 In assessing the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255967A1.html
      • compliance, according to Section 1.1307 of our Rules.15 Based on the evidence, we find that Infinity produced power density levels more than 5% of its general population and occupational limits and failed to bring the areas into compliance in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. 17. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')16 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.17 However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules.18 In assessing the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255968A1.html
      • to levels of RFR exceeding the occupational/controlled MPE limit. Based on the evidence before us, we find that the Cumulus apparently willfully violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules on June 5, 2003, by exposing the tower climber to levels of RFR exceeding the occupational/controlled MPE limit permitted by the Commission. 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')28 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.29 However, we previously determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules.30 We propose the $10,000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-255969A1.html
      • any, enforcement action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.6 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office Northeast Region _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 2 47 C.F.R. 15.5(b) and 15.5(c). 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 4 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 5 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 6 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255969A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255969A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256119A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Source willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna and by failing to maintain the lighting of its antenna structure. We also find, based on the evidence before us, that Source willfully and repeatedly failed to respond to Commission correspondence. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules sets the base forfeiture amount at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information; ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking; and four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256120A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 1.5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Alpine, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),11 by failing to maintain a meaningful managerial and staff presence at the KWYS main studio. 1.6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio requirements is $7,000.12 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256484A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Gerritsen apparently willfully violated Sections 321(b) and 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the radio communications of a Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer while he attempted to use the amateur frequencies to contact a sailing vessel in distress. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for causing interference to licensed stations is $7,000.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256485A1.html
      • the required monthly and weekly tests. Consequently, Lazer's violation was willful. Lazer's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lazer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 1.9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256582A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Visionary apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules29 by exceeding the public RFR MPE limits in a publicly accessible area and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing an area that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. 14. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')30 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.31 However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules.32 15. We propose
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256583A1.html
      • 2004. Therefore, his violation is willful. Mollenido's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mollinedo apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 90.9 MHz. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257047A1.html
      • the Commission's Rules. Furthermore, Mr.Dacres has been warned orally and in writing of the possible penalties for unlicensed operation of the station on several occasions. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Samuel E. Dacres willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license. 7. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,6 which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257048A1.html
      • the Commission.2 On February 27, 2004, WBLT admitted that it had never registered its antenna structure. On March 1, 2004, WBLT obtained registration number 1242296 for its WBLT tower. 4. Based on the evidence before us, we find WBLT apparently willfully3 and repeatedly4 violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure. 5. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failing to register an antenna structure is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257049A1.html
      • to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.7 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent-San Juan _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 U.S.C. 302a(b), 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a). 347 C.F.R. 2.925. 447 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 547 C.F.R. 401, 501, 503 and 510. 6P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 718 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257049A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257049A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257050A1.html
      • your unresponsiveness will be considered in our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office JAB:PRB _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 247 U.S.C. 302(b) 347 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 447 C.F.R. 95.603(c). 5See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c), 2.803 647 C.F.R. 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 747 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) 8 see 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 9 see 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 10 P.L. 93-579. 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(3) 11 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257050A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257050A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257051A1.html
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 3 4 See 47 U.S.C. 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) 2 3 7 See 47 U.S.C. 95.603(c) & 2.803 8 47 U.S.C. 95.655(a) 9 47 U.S.C. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 10 See 47 U.S.C. 1.80(b0(3) 11 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 12 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 13 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 14 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257051A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257051A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257052A1.html
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 3 4 See 47 U.S.C. 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) 2 3 7 See 47 U.S.C. 95.603(c) & 2.803 8 47 U.S.C. 95.655(a) 9 47 U.S.C. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 10 See 47 U.S.C. 1.80(b0(3) 11 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 12 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 13 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 14 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257052A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257052A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257053A1.html
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 3 4 See 47 U.S.C. 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) 2 3 7 See 47 U.S.C. 95.603(c) & 2.803 8 47 U.S.C. 95.655(a) 9 47 U.S.C. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 10 See 47 U.S.C. 1.80(b0(3) 11 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 12 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 13 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 14 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257053A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257053A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257054A1.html
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 3 4 See 47 U.S.C. 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) 2 3 7 See 47 U.S.C. 95.603(c) & 2.803 8 47 U.S.C. 95.655(a) 9 47 U.S.C. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 10 See 47 U.S.C. 1.80(b0(3) 11 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 12 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 13 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 14 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257054A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257054A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257055A1.html
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau SP:sp cc: Sent by regular mail. _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 3 4 See 47 U.S.C. 95.409(a) & 2.925(a) 2 3 7 See 47 U.S.C. 95.603(c) & 2.803 8 47 U.S.C. 95.655(a) 9 47 U.S.C. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000 10 See 47 U.S.C. 1.80(b0(3) 11 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 12 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 13 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 14 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257055A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257055A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257373A1.html
      • that it had been operating on those frequencies for approximately ten years. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Driscoll apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment without authorization on the frequencies 462.625 MHz and 467.625 MHz.5 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257374A1.html
      • monthly and weekly tests, therefore, Guerrero's violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Guerrero apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000.12 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257375A1.html
      • W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b) 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 4 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c). 5 See 47 C.F.R, 95.603(c), 2.803 6 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 7 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 9 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 10 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 11 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257375A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257375A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257559A1.html
      • April 29, 1999 for failure to register its antenna structure, the structure was not registered with the Commission until December 27, 2004. We therefore find that Forsberg apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, as required by Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 9. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257560A1.html
      • MHz on August 18, 2004, August 23, 2004, and September 13, 2004. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Classic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a base station and mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 31.02 MHz. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257948A1.html
      • the frequency 465.63125 MHz in New York, NY. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Universal willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 465.63125 MHz on March 23, 2004 and March 24, 2004 without a Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257949A1.html
      • license, did not include the GMRS frequency 462.625 MHz and was cancelled on June 10, 2004.4 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find Pembroke willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating two-way radio transmitters on GMRS frequency 465.625 MHz without a license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules7, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257950A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Bill Burnham at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent, Portland Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 15.5(b). 347 C.F.R. 15.1 et seq. 447 C.F.R. 15.5(b). 547 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 647 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 747 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 8See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 9See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257950A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257950A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258044A1.html
      • have a license to operate this station and does not qualify to be licensed by rule. Mr. Kennedy subsequently admitted to the unlicensed operation. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on November 13, 2004, Mr. Kennedy willfully7 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on 157.025 MHz. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),8 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258045A1.html
      • have a license to operate this station and does not qualify to be licensed by rule. Mr. McKinney subsequently admitted to the unlicensed operation. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on November 13, 2004, Mr. McKinney willfully7 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on 156.325 MHz. 8. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),8 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258046A1.html
      • structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AMFM Ohio apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1014752. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for antenna structure is $10,000.16 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258048A1.html
      • Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 4 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c), 2.803. 6 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 7 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 8 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 9 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 10 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 11 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 12 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258048A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258048A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258186A1.html
      • Antenna Structures #1040052, 1040053, and 1040054 had never been painted or lit. On January 25, 2005, agents confirmed that the antenna structures were not painted or lit. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mega Communications willfully3 violated Section 17.21 of the Rules by failing to comply with antenna structure painting and lighting specifications. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,4 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the prescribed painting and lighting specifications is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258187A1.html
      • the structures. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vector apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on structures 1204872, 1204873 and 1204874. Moreover, Vector must submit a statement detailing the steps taken to repair structures 1204872, 1204873 and 1204874 within thirty days. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,5 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258870A1.html
      • units without an FCC license. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find Bee Taxi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 155.970 MHz and 155.190 MHz on September 15, and September 23, 2004 without a Commission authorization. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258871A1.html
      • 8:30 p.m. and 9:32 p.m. on July 29, 2004. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WTMR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels, in direct contravention of its station authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258872A1.html
      • missing. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Twenty-One Sound apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a), and 73.3526(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an operational EAS system, failing to maintain a main studio for Station KNSX(FM), and failing to maintain a public inspection file as required by the Rules. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for the listed violations are: $8,000 for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment; $7,000 for a violation of a main studio rule; and $10,000 for failure to maintain a public inspection file consistent with the Rules.16 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258873A1.html
      • channel 49. From approximately January 1, 2005 to January 21, 2005, station WKNI-LP/W49BM operated on TV channel 25. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Loflin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating the station WKNI-LP/W49BM on an unauthorized frequency. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.7 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258874A1.html
      • Commission's records showed that Mr. Riels did not have a license to operate this station and does not qualify to be licensed by rule. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on December 8, 2004, Mr. Riels willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on 156.875 MHz. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),9 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258875A1.html
      • Therefore, Bustos' violation is willful. Bustos' violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bustos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating KZNY at times outside of the KZNY station authorizations. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-258876A1.html
      • Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 18.115(a). 3ISM equipment is defined as ``[e]quipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally RF energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding applications in the field of telecommunication.'' 47 C.F.R. 18.107(c). 447 C.F.R. 18.107(b). 547 C.F.R. 18.115(a). 647 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 747 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 847 C.F.R. 18.117. 947 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). This is in addition to the report required by Section 18.117, referenced above. 10See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 11See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258876A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258876A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259063A1.html
      • easily altered for use on CB frequencies. Accordingly, the Connex 3300HP is a CB transceiver that cannot be certified under the Rules. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hightech apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. 11. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,14 the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non- compliant equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259158A1.html
      • stated that he did not know what time the station's automated system changed to the nighttime power level. Based on this evidence, we find that Ingstad apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain the antenna input power at the authorized level. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259301A1.html
      • the Rules.16 The continuous transmissions of the same pre-recorded phrase and segments thereof, and the abrupt ending of those transmissions in mid-sentence without identification, suggests that Mr. Baxter did not exercise control of his station. We conclude that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully violated Section 97.105(a) of the Rules. 18. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for willful or malicious interference, $3,000 for failure to file required information, and $3,000 for violation of transmitter control. 17 There are no base forfeiture amounts for violations of the rules prohibiting broadcasting or pecuniary interest in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259803A1.html
      • 2005. Therefore, his violation is willful. Major's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Major apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 96.5 MHz. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.10 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259912A1.html
      • the side of the access road, thus allowing unimpeded access to the property. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Vera-Maury apparently willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose his antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to provide effective AM tower fencing is $7,000.4 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259913A1.html
      • of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to FairPoint Communications, Inc., 521 E. Morehead Street Suite 250, Charlotte, NC 28202. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 U.S.C. 15.5. 347 C.F.R. 15.5(b). 447 C.F.R. 15.5(c). 547 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 647 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 747 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 8See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 9See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259913A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259913A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260117A1.html
      • consequently, numerous RMTs and RWTs were not received or transmitted. Therefore, Farmworkers' violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Farmworkers Educational Radio Network, Inc., apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KCEC-FM. 1.10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260406A1.html
      • with the Commission's Part 15 rules. He nevertheless continued to operate the station without a license and without coming into compliance with the Part 15 rules. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Simon willfully5 and repeatedly6 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an AM radio transmitter without a license. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),7 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260407A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Sims apparently willfully violated Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) (CB Rule 26) of the Rules by operating a CB radio station without Commission authorization and refusing to allow an inspection of his CB station. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,13 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. The base amount for failure to permit inspection of a CB radio station is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260457A1.html
      • was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day. Therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that TravelCenters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale a non-certified CB transceiver. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),19 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation.21 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260541A1.html
      • granted. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ms. Salazar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526(e) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000.10 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260650A1.html
      • hazard and more than a year after the structure was required to be registered. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arcom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to register antenna structure #1249670, located in Blue Mountain, St.Croix, USVI. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260730A1.html
      • 2004, Parks did not deny that the issues/programs lists were missing from WEKC's public inspection file on the date of the inspection. We therefore find that Parks apparently willfully and repeatedly failed to maintain the issues/programs list in the public file, as required by Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. 10. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000) for failure to file required forms or information and is set at ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for failure to maintain items in the public inspection file. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260731A1.html
      • hazard and more than a year after the structure was required to be registered. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Arcom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to register antenna structure #1249670, located in Blue Mountain, St.Croix, USVI. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260946A1.html
      • station installed the non-directional antenna with no vertical component earlier in April. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Family apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260947A1.html
      • failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of its station authorization. We also find that West Coast apparently willfully violated Section 73.1560(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain the transmitter output power of its FM station as near as practicable to the authorized power. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000.9 There is no base forfeiture amount for installing an antenna in a manner that is not authorized by the station authorization, and, consequently, changing its coverage area. We conclude, however, that violation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260948A1.html
      • and the radio issues/programs list. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find GB Enterprises apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to enclose its antenna structures within effective locked fences and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,7 the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing (failure to enclose antenna structures within effective locked fences) is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). Although the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000), because WHNR-AM's public file
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-260949A1.html
      • our assessment of a forfeiture amount. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5) 247 U.S.C. 302(b) 347 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) 447 C.F.R. 95.603(c) 5See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c); 47 C.F.R. 2.803 647 C.F.R. 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 747 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 8See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 9See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 10P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 1118 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260949A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260949A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261123A1.html
      • 2005. This letter was not returned to the Dallas Office. To date, however, Unique has not filed the required response. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Unique apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 308(b) of the Act by failing to respond to Commission correspondence.8 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261709A1.html
      • time. In addition, the tower was not protected by a property fence. Based on this evidence, we find that WSMN apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose one of its three antenna structures within an effective locked fence or other enclosure.5 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations at Broadcast stations is $7,000.6 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261710A1.html
      • installed in 2000. Therefore, Anderson's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Anderson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261711A1.html
      • was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ICB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on an unauthorized microwave channel of 21585.0 MHz. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.7 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261712A1.html
      • August 9, 2005. Therefore, Kojo's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kojo apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261713A1.html
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Krieger apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on an unauthorized frequency of 21375.0 MHz. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261714A1.html
      • was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lamkin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on the unauthorized microwave channel of 21245.0 MHz. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261715A1.html
      • 2004. Therefore, More Enterprises' violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that More Enterprises apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261716A1.html
      • 2005. Therefore, Pacific Spanish's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Spanish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.10 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261717A1.html
      • station in question, however, Pacnet apparently continues to operate the station. We will therefore direct Pacnet to file a report with the District Director of the San Diego Office detailing whether Pacnet is continuing to operate the microwave station described in this NAL and pursuant to what authority. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261718A1.html
      • appear to have a license to operate the microwave station in question, we will direct Pacnet to file a report with the District Director of the San Diego Office detailing whether Pacnet is continuing to operate the microwave station described in this NAL and pursuant to what authority. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261719A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, they were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tocabi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a microwave radio station on an unauthorized frequency of 22455.0 MHz and at an unauthorized location. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261720A1.html
      • in May 2004. Therefore, Uniradio's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Uniradio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261721A1.html
      • and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Chad Jolley at his address of record and to the Beavis CB & PC Shop. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Fred L. Broce District Director Atlanta Office FCC Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 U.S.C. 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1) and 2.815(b) & (c). 347 C.F.R 95.655(a). 447 C.F.R. 2.815(c). 547 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5). 647 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 747 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 847 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 9See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 10See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261721A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261721A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261768A1.html
      • Rules by failing to comply with the main studio location requirements. In addition, we direct Southern Media to provide a written description of the steps it has taken to correct these violations within 30 days. We will determine at that time whether additional enforcement action should be taken. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts are: $8,000 for EAS equipment not installed or operational, $10,000 for violation of public file rules, $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, $4,000 for construction and operation at unauthorized location (Broadcast Transmitter), and $4,000 for construction
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-261931A1.html
      • tower having radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000.9 Although the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262093A1.html
      • 1.903(a) and (b), Sections 90.429(a) and (b), and Section 90.425(a) of the Rules by operating its private land mobile station in direct contravention of its station authorization, by failing to properly identify the Amherst station, and by failing to maintain a station control point for the Amherst station. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is four thousand dollars ($4,000) for operating on an unauthorized frequency, one thousand dollars ($1,000) for failing to provide a station identification, and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for violation of transmitter control requirements.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262187A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment.7 8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to St. Theresa's Nursing Home at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 15.109. 347 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 447 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 547 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 6See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 7See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262187A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262187A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262291A1.html
      • the reply to the NOV, BCR stated that the violation had been corrected and the lists were now in the station's public file. Based on this evidence, we find that BCR apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526(c) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violations of public file rules is $10,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262292A1.html
      • public inspection file upon request during regular business hours. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Willis apparently willfully violated Sections 73.1560(b) and 73.3526(a) of the Rules by operating more than 140% overpower and failing to make available for inspection a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000.12 However, because Willis' public file was mostly complete and missing only two items, we conclude a reduction in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262293A1.html
      • is now complete. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Willis apparently willfully violated Sections 73.1560(a)(1) and 73.3526(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain its authorized antenna input power and failing to make material required to be in the public file available for inspection.10 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits and for violation of public file rules is $4,000 and $10,000, respectively.11 However, because Willis' public file was partially complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262294A1.html
      • therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nextel apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to light antenna structure #1245078 in accordance with the specifications set forth on the structure's FAA determination and its antenna structure registration. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262295A1.html
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Richard A. & Joann R. Peterson, Joint Tenants, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of KBSZ(AM)'s EAS equipment. 1.12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262296A1.html
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Red Diamond apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WPIY355, on 151.520 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262407A1.html
      • violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. We also admonish Trap Rock for failing to post an antenna structure registration number at the base of its tower in violation of Section 17.4(g). 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262408A1.html
      • required more than 30 minutes to correct.7 TC employees only notified the FAA of a lighting outage on June 5, 2005. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that TC apparently willfully violated Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to comply with prescribed lighting requirements. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262555A1.html
      • Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 4 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c), 2.803. 6 47 C.F.R. 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 7 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 8 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 9 See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 10 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 11 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 12 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262555A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262555A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262937A1.html
      • period of time and that he had notified station management in April, 2005. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Corry Communications Corporation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at WWCB. 11. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),10 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 the base forfeiture amount is set at eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for failure to maintain operational EAS equipment. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,12 which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262938A1.html
      • find that Moises Cabrera and Juan Cabrera apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 89.7 MHz in New York, NY on December 29, 2004, and March 3, March 7, March 8, and May 5, 2005, without a Commission authorization. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262939A1.html
      • willful. Because the violation continued for more than one day, it was repeated. 15. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WSKQ and WPAT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules")14 by failing to maintain operational Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment. 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000.15 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262940A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Time Warner Cable, Inc., apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to ensure that antenna structure #1240108 was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000.13 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262941A1.html
      • was unauthorized, her violation is willful. Craig's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Craig apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 106.9 MHz. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.17 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262942A1.html
      • the required labeling. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clegg apparently repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules by importing and marketing a non-authorized radio frequency device. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 the base forfeiture amount for importing or marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000.14 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262943A1.html
      • Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 15.5(b), 15.5(c). 3 See Letter from Mr. Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Jim Humphrey, dated February 23, 2005. 4 See Letter from Mr. Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Jim Humphrey, dated March 29, 2005. 5 647 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 747 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 847 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 9See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 10See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262943A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262943A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262944A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to COP-USA, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 2 47 U.S.C. 302(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a). 4 47 C.F.R. 2.925. 547 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 647 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 747 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 8See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 9See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262944A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262944A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262945A1.html
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to COP-USA Inc. at 15346 E. Valley Blvd., City of Industry, CA 91746. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 2.803(a). 3 47 C.F.R. 2.925 447 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 547 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 6See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 7See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262945A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262945A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263107A1.html
      • 304 feet and therefore Conneaut was required to register the tower with the Commission. The tower remained unregistered until November 18, 2005. Accordingly, we find that Conneaut apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, as required by Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 7. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),8 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is set at three thousand dollars ($3,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263335A1.html
      • the course of an inspection and investigation, authorized by the Act and the Rules, 8. There is no base forfeiture amount for refusing to conduct a requested test during an inspection. We conclude, however, that this violation is similar to a violation that involves failing to permit inspection, which, pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, carries a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for each such violation.7 Failure to perform tests requested during an inspection effectively negates the value of the inspection, because it prevents the agents from obtaining necessary information from the inspection. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263336A1.html
      • of almost three months. Therefore, T-Mobile's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that T-Mobile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating microwave radio stations without authorization. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.9 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263337A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that CRC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49, and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure registration, lighting, monitoring, record keeping, and notification requirements for antenna structure #1019247. 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information, such as an antenna structure registration,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263338A1.html
      • address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John E. Rahtes District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 15.5. 3An incidental radiator is a device that generates radio frequency energy during the course of its operation even though the device is not intentionally designed to generate or emit radio frequency energy. 4See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3) 5See 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510 647 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 7P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 818 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263338A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263338A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263339A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Nathan Dauchy at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 2 47 C.F.R. 15.5(b). 3 47 C.F.R. 15.1 et seq. 4 47 C.F.R. 15.5(b). 5 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 6 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 7 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 8 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 9 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263339A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263339A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263340A1.html
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Sapp Bros. Truck Stops, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 2 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a). 3 47 C.F.R. 2.925 4 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 5 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 6 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 7 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263340A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263340A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263341A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Jason Katlenbach, d/b/a Metamerchant, at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 2 47 U.S.C. 302a(b). 3 47 C.F.R 2.803(a) 4 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 5 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 6 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 7 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 8 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263341A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263341A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263483A1.html
      • his CB station inconsistent with the Rules, he was not authorized to operate pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Fricke apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a CB radio station without Commission authorization. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.10 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263484A1.html
      • radio transmitting equipment. Moreover, Mr. Marius has been warned verbally and in writing of the possible penalties for unlicensed operation of the station on several occasions. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Marius willfully4 and repeatedly5 violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license. 10. Pursuant to Section 1.80(b) (4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263649A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Gerritsen apparently willfully violated Sections 321(b) and 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the radio communications of a Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer while he attempted to use the amateur frequencies to contact a sailing vessel in distress. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for causing interference to licensed stations is $7,000.11 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263650A1.html
      • the Rules by operating a base station on an unauthorized frequency of 35.32 MHz, by operating mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 36.34 MHz, and by operating its low-band and mid- band transmitters with an output power in excess of the power specified in its station license. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000.5 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263779A1.html
      • Therefore, KPAL's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KPAL Television Inc., apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of KPAL's EAS equipment. 1.12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263780A1.html
      • transmitters, therefore, its violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ESP apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a land mobile radio transmitter without a license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000.10 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-263781A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna lighting, monitoring, notification and registration requirements specified for antenna structure #1041257, and for failing to comply with the registration requirements for antenna structure #1041256. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264046A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''27 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')28 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,29 the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Loves' violations is $21,000. 18. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264049A1.html
      • by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to 2by2security.com at 1125 N. McCadden Place, Suite 108, Los Angeles, CA 90038. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 2 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a). 3 47 U.S.C. 302a(b). 4 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 5 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 6 47 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 7 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 8 See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264049A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264049A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264149A1.html
      • individually register the towers until after the follow-up inspection by FCC agents on March 24, 2005. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Renda apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register individually each of its WJAS antenna structures. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264150A1.html
      • 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Brasfield & Gorrie apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a) and 90.425(a) of the Rules by failing to operate their station in accordance with their station authorizations (operating on an unauthorized frequency) and failing to identify their station. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and failing to provide station identification is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264273A1.html
      • willful. Toussaint's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Toussaint apparently willfully and repeatedly violated SectionS 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license on 102.9 MHz in Mattapan, MA. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264407A1.html
      • three of the antenna structures in WBGG's directional antenna array were not locked. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AMFM Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose antenna structures 1034050, 1034051, and 1034052 within effective locked fences. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an AM fencing violation is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264408A1.html
      • 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 127, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.1745, and willfully violated Section 73.3526(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio, operating overpower during night time hours and having no public file available. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount are $7,000 for failing to maintain a main studio, $4,000 for exceeding power limits and $10,000 for violation of public file rules. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264409A1.html
      • for the duration of the license period. Therefore, Cortaro's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264507A1.html
      • one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vance apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 2.815(c) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers and an non-certified external RF power amplifiers. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264508A1.html
      • Caballeros' violations occurred on more than one day, therefore, they were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Caballero apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of EAS equipment used by KMMA-CA, KQMM-CA, and KVMM-CA. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to ensure EAS Equipment operational readiness is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264509A1.html
      • the duration of the license period. Therefore, KM TV's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264726A1.html
      • no one had been stationed at the Wurtsboro studio since some time in 2004. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a management and staff presence at the WZAD main studio. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264727A1.html
      • the missing material was ever in place. Therefore, Entravision's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264728A1.html
      • is willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Scrugham apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmission apparatus without a license on 100.3 MHz in Kamiah, Idaho. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264848A1.html
      • for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy Models DX33HML and DX44V. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gambler's apparently willfully violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers at its store in Pinconning, Michigan. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-264948A1.html
      • for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy Models DX33HML and DX44V. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gambler's apparently willfully violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers at its store in Pinconning, Michigan. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265629A1.html
      • CB transceivers and non-certified external RF power amplifiers. Based on the evidence before us, we find that GI Joe's apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers and linear amplifiers. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265630A1.html
      • file did not contain any radio issues/programs lists for the period of January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that New Life apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Because station WBRQ's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is warranted.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265669A1.html
      • materials listed in that section. On April 6, 2006, the station's public file did not contain any radio issues/programs lists. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Barreto apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain public file is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265670A1.html
      • us, we find that Hacienda apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because station WRRE's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265671A1.html
      • Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Florida Power and Light at the address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5. 47 C.F.R S 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265671A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265671A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265672A1.html
      • by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Lakeland Electric at the address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5. 47 C.F.R S 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265672A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265672A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265692A1.html
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Midas Auto Service Experts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265692A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265692A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265693A1.html
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to MCM at 650 Congress Park Dr., Centerville, OH, 45459. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. SS 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265693A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265693A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265778A1.html
      • was willful. The failure to maintain a local main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Amaturo apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the Main Studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265779A1.html
      • Macerich's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Macerich apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WCQI991, on 461.0125 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265890A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Midwest apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to adhere to the station's authorized power and hours of operation specified on the KWYR(AM) license. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-265891A1.html
      • S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R.S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265891A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265891A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266077A1.html
      • children's programming in 2003 was available for inspection. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mediacom apparently willfully violated Section 76.1700 of the Rules by failing to make material required to be in the public file (commercial records for children's programming) available for public inspection. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. However, because Mediacom's public file was partially complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266078A1.html
      • apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules, by failing to comply with painting and lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1015656, and for failing to ensure that the structure was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266079A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Gregory Saadi at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b).[1][Author ID1: at Wed Jun 21 10:16:00 2006 ] 47 C.F.R.S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References Visible links 1. file:///tmp/wv-oT0ZXR#author1 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266079A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266079A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266228A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by failing to limit signal leakage from its cable television system to the specified amount. We also find that Cox willfully violated Section 76.611(a) of the Rules by exceeding the allowed cumulative signal leakage performance criteria on its cable television system. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266229A1.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to All American Plazas, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David Dombrowski Acting District Director, Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R.S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266229A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266229A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266328A1.html
      • involved with operating the radio station. Venters admitted to operating the radio station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Venters apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 100.9 MHz in Okeechobee, Florida, on July 12, 2005. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266437A1.html
      • any monitoring point exceeds its specified limits, the licensee must terminate operation within three hours or reduce power. Access.1's claim that it believed the limits were exceeded because of construction in the area does not negate its responsibility to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 73.62. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because WWRL's public file was mostly complete and missing only one item, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266561A1.html
      • lists. In response to the LOI, Truatt stated that, although the station had a public affairs calendar, he "forgot" to place an issues/programs list in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Truatt apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules. 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to make required measurements is $2,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because WTBQ's public file
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266562A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that T-Mobile West Corporation, apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.23 of the Rules, by failing to comply with lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1041076. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266565A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Xtreme Machines at its address of record and to counsel for Xtreme Machines at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel N. Noel District Director, New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266565A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266565A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266879A1.html
      • radio transmission equipment on 87.9 MHz in Bronx, NY on October 6, October 8, and October 27, 2005 without a Commission authorization and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station on October 6 and October 8, 2005. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266880A1.html
      • sources. 11. Broadcast House's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcast House apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KNDI. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266881A1.html
      • to the Los Angeles agent's inspection. Therefore, Una Vez's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266882A1.html
      • the WPOH402 license. This violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Nextel apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its SMR station, WPOH402, on 810.2375 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266883A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Vision Communications Co. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266883A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266883A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267053A1.html
      • the Rules. Time Warner failed to timely file its 2004 and 2005 FCC Forms 320. Indeed, we find it particularly egregious that Time Warner did not file its 2004 FCC Form 320 until April 14, 2006. We therefore admonish Time Warner for violating Section 76.1803 of the Rules. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267054A1.html
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Fed Ex apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WQAS435, on 460.250 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267055A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Igor Oberman at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267055A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267055A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267101A1.html
      • issues/programs lists were maintained after 2004. Therefore, KITZ Radio's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267102A1.html
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Sentry Tech Systems at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267102A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267102A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267214A1.html
      • issues/programs lists were maintained after 2004. Therefore, KITZ Radio's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267215A1.html
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Micromagic Co., Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267215A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267215A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267302A1.html
      • willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint its antenna structure as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. We also find that Long Pond apparently willfully violation Section 73.3527 by failing to maintain for inspection the complete public inspection file 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000, and failure to maintain items in the public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267303A1.html
      • CC Licenses' violation was willful. The operation occurred for more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CC Licenses apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed STL transmitter on 944.865 MHz. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267304A1.html
      • CC Licenses' violation was willful. The operation occurred for more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CC Licenses apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed STL transmitter on 945.120 MHz. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267570A1.html
      • station violated Section 301 of the Act. Therefore, the violation was willful. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Guzman apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio station without Commission authorization on June 27 and 28, 2006. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267701A1.html
      • power or cease operations at local sunset time on numerous occasions during December 2005 and January 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WADV Radio, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating with its authorized daytime power at nighttime. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267702A1.html
      • without a license violates the Rules and the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Colon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on August 28, August 31, September 5, and September 10, 2006. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267703A1.html
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 28 and 29, 2006, Champion apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by operating its cable system in violation of signal leakage standards. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267704A1.html
      • violation was willful. The failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that HTV, apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267705A1.html
      • than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Albino Ortega and Maria Juarez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the KIGO AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267706A1.html
      • by KUPI-AM occurred more than once. For these reasons, Sandhill's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sandhill apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose two of the KUPI-AM antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267710A1.html
      • Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Coverage Solutions Corporation at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph Barlow District Director, Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803(a)(1), 2.925(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 2.925(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267710A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267710A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268220A1.html
      • that the station maintained a public inspection file. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Smallwood apparently willfully violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file requirements is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of EAS equipment requirements is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268221A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Techno Radio Communications, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268221A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268221A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268222A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to DL Management, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R S 2.803(a). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268222A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268222A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268223A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to All Electronics Corporation at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. SS 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a). 47 U.S.C. SS 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268223A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268223A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268237A1.html
      • 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully violated Sections 73.1350(b)(2), and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a control system that provides personnel the capability to continuously control the transmitter and failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268343A1.html
      • license was willful. Because the unlicensed operation continued for more than one day, the violation was repeated. Accordingly, we find that Rankine apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 90.1 MHz at five locations in or near Newark, NJ. 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268344A1.html
      • that its operation was causing harmful interference. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Carnival apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on May 8, June 18, June 22, and September 14, and 17, 2006. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268345A1.html
      • was causing harmful interference. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Royal Caribbean apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on May 8 and 9, June 18 and 25 and September 13 and 17, 2006. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268346A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Flagship apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to update the Commission's antenna registration records and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g. failure to notify the Commission of a change in ownership information) is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268420A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Simpson willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 102.3 MHz in Brooklyn, New York, on January 12, 2006, May 6, 2006, July 15, 2006, and July 20, 2006, without a Commission authorization. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268421A1.html
      • 2006, the station's General Manager admitted that Unique operated the station after its license expired until September 26, 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Unique apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operations after its license expired. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268422A1.html
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kaltenbach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified VHF and UHF transceivers. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268423A1.html
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Eagle West apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install and make operational EAS equipment in its cable system serving Mesa, Arizona. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268424A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 9. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Edna Greene at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268424A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268424A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268622A1.html
      • There were also no log entries describing when the EAS equipment first became defective. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ABG apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at station WRCG. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268870A1.html
      • we find that Patrick apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a), 17.50, and 17.51 of the Rules by failing to register its antenna structure, failing to maintain good visibility of its antenna structure, and failing to exhibit required obstruction lighting on its antenna structure located in Bastrop, Louisiana. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268871A1.html
      • chief operator subsequently confirmed the agents' findings in a written statement. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mega willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels, in direct contravention of its station authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268872A1.html
      • after September 2005. There was no evidence that lists after September 2005 were ever maintained in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that A Radio apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WEGA's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268874A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to John M. Friese at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268874A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268874A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268875A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Jalin Chi at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268875A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268875A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268876A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Guang Yu at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268876A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268876A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268877A1.html
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Dat Phan Truong at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268877A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268877A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268885A1.html
      • nighttime operation, which resulted in operation at approximately 219% of authorized nighttime power. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Anastos willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels as required by its license. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-268886A1.html
      • by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MBR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files at the main studio location for stations KIQQ(AM) and KIQQ-FM. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269018A1.html
      • voided his authority to operate his CB Station. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on July 18 and September 28, 2006, Mr. Duckworth willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269019A1.html
      • Orleans Office monitored station WQST-AM's radio broadcasts. On September 22, 2006, an agent also inspected the station's operational studio. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ace apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operations after its license expired. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269020A1.html
      • 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Metzger apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale and selling non-certified CB transceivers at the 1 Stop CB Shop, his store in Titusville, Florida. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269021A1.html
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to John Elway Pontiac, Buick, GMC, West, at their address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269021A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269021A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269022A1.html
      • Return Receipt Requested to Caught On Tape at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a[5][Author ID1: at Wed Nov 15 16:08:00 2006 ](b). 47 C.F.R. S [6][Author ID1: at Wed Nov 15 16:08:00 2006 ]2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. [7][Author ID1: at Wed Nov 15 16:08:00 2006 ] 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403.[8][Author ID1: at Wed Nov 15 16:08:00 2006 ] 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References Visible links
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269169A1.html
      • violation was repeated. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find Family apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 30.94 MHz and 30.98 MHz on December 29, 2005 and January 5 and 10, 2006 without a Commission authorization. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269170A1.html
      • only after being advised of the violation by a Commission agent. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pinnacle willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure number 1017802. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269171A1.html
      • There were also no log entries describing when the EAS equipment first became defective. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Russell apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at station KWRD. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269172A1.html
      • fence was not protective. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and failing to maintain effective locked fences around the bases of its antenna structures. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for not having EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269173A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gold Coast apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.1560(b) of the Rules by operating the KMLA transmitter at a power level exceeding 105% of power level authorized by the KMLA license. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269174A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, its violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Multicultural apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.51 of the Rules, by failing to exhibit the structure's red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269175A1.html
      • filed for and received an STA for KNCR. We note that the Commission has stated in the past that a licensee is expected to correct errors when they are brought to the licensee's attention and that such correction is not grounds for a downward adjustment in the forfeiture. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the operation at unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269176A1.html
      • in the restricted frequency bands. 47 C.F.R. S 2.1 defines spurious emissions as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 1 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269176A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269176A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269177A1.html
      • imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Laser Radio Communications at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269177A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269177A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269283A1.html
      • was unauthorized, his violation is willful. Payne's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Payne apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 96.9 MHz. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269284A1.html
      • put in place or compiled since October 2005, the violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269285A1.html
      • consequently, numerous RMTs and RWTs were not received or transmitted. Therefore, One Mart's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that One Mart apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules, by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KEVT. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets forth the base forfeiture amounts for various violations of the Commission's Rules. The base forfeiture for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269359A1.html
      • of the Commission's authority to inspect the station and was again requested to allow the inspection, but he refused. Based on the evidence before us, we find Britcher apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his radio station. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. The base amount for failure to permit inspection of a radio station is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269360A1.html
      • authority granted by the Commission to operate this station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Duncan apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 103.3 MHz in Bettendorf, Iowa, on April 18 and 19, 2006. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269361A1.html
      • authority to operate his CB station pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on November 8, 2006, Mr. Roberts willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269362A1.html
      • evidence before us, we also find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(b)(2) of the Rules by failing to maintain an EAS capable of transmitting EAS tests and failing to maintain a control system that provides personnel the capability to continuously control the transmitter. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of EAS equipment not being installed or operational is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for violations of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269484A1.html
      • EAS test after that date. There were also no EAS logs and no Cable EAS Handbook available. Based on the evidence before us, we find that COMSOUTH apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain an EAS capable of transmitting EAS tests. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269485A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 9. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Yogesh Dave at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269485A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269485A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269802A1.html
      • in the restricted frequency bands. 47 C.F.R. S 2.1 defines spurious emissions as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269802A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269802A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269871A1.html
      • for special temporary authority to operate station WEHH and WELM at variance with their licenses. We find that Pembrook apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate stations WEHH and WELM in accordance with the modes and power authorized in its licenses. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Because Pembrook submitted evidence that it had purchased new beacon lights and was attempting to locate an individual to install the new lights, we reduce the proposed forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269872A1.html
      • to take action to repair the lights, we find that the violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore the violation was repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Roy apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"),^16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,^17
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269873A1.html
      • before sunrise. There are no Commission records that authorize TPN to provide presunrise or post sunset service. Based on the information before us, we find that TPN willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times inconsistent with the terms of its station authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000 and for operating at times or with modes or powers other than those specified and made part of the license is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269874A1.html
      • be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The term "willful" as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. The term "repeated" means the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. Section 15.1(b) of the Rules states that an intentional radiator that is not in accordance with the requirements of Part 15 must be licensed, pursuant to Section 301 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269875A1.html
      • evidence that the station had ever installed an EAS decoder at the station, and the station's license was granted May 2, 2005. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hispanic apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install an EAS decoder. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of EAS equipment not being installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269876A1.html
      • frequency 145.020 MHz without an Amateur license that day and for approximately the past three years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Parker apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitting equipment on 145.020 MHz without a Commission authorization. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed radio operation is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269877A1.html
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Self Defense Supply at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269877A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269877A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269878A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to PepBoys Auto at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269878A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269878A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269879A1.html
      • sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Spittys Wholesale Specialty Products at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269879A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269879A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269880A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to ORVAC Electronics at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269880A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269880A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269881A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to DuVac Electronics at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269881A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269881A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269882A1.html
      • U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ditec Digital Systems at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 15.205. 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269882A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269882A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269883A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Iglesia de Dios Ebenezer at their record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director, San Diego Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.219(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.219(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269883A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269883A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270266A1.html
      • therefore, we conclude that Mobile's apparent violation was repeated. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mobile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a base station on 35.18 MHz and mobile units on 34.94 MHz, without the required license. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270267A1.html
      • we conclude that New Relampago's apparent violation was repeated. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that New Relampago apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a base station and mobile units on the frequency 35.08 MHz, without the required license. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270268A1.html
      • ever maintained in the public file. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.3526 by failing to operate consistent with the terms of its station authorization and failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because station KZEY's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270269A1.html
      • of the K43FO EAS equipment. 3ABN's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 3ABN repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at K43FO. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270270A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 9. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Johanna Sacco at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270270A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270270A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270271A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Precision Laser & Instrument at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270271A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270271A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270272A1.html
      • 6, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. SS 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270272A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270272A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270273A1.html
      • America at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. SS 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270273A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270273A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270446A1.html
      • dated after March 26, 2004. There was no evidence that any lists after that date were maintained in the public file. Based on the evidence before us, we find Fannin apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WPPL's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270447A1.html
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Big Lots, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270447A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270447A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270621A1.html
      • after March 2003. The station owner admitted that he failed to maintain any Issues/Programs lists after March 2003. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wilson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WAGF (AM)'s public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270622A1.html
      • after March 2003. The station owner admitted that he failed to maintain any Issues/Programs lists after March 2003. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wilson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WAGF-FM's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270623A1.html
      • after March 2003. The station owner admitted that he failed to maintain any Issues/Programs lists after March 2003. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wilson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WJJN-FM's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270624A1.html
      • apartment in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Charles admitted to operating the radio station from his apartment since the end of April. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Charles apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270625A1.html
      • admitted to operating the radio station for a few hours 5-6 days a week since the end of April 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Pierre-Francois apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270626A1.html
      • The failure to maintain a local main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hispanic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio for KBBV-CA. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270629A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Monoprice, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. ^8 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). ^9 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). ^10 See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270629A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270629A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270630A1.html
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to CensusPC at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. ^8 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). ^9 See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). ^10 See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270630A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270630A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270800A1.html
      • antenna structure. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Forever apparently willfully violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, monitoring and notification requirements for its antenna structure # 1027115. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the prescribed lighting and/or marking for antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270801A1.html
      • than one day, it was repeated. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mexicana apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a base station at an unauthorized location and by operating mobile units on an unauthorized frequency of 157.905 MHz. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operating from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270802A1.html
      • failure to file the appropriate fee. Larson-Wynn failed to re-submit the correct fee payment and continued operating the station from an unauthorized location from September 22, 2004 to October 27, 2006. The violation, therefore, was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the operation at unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270803A1.html
      • of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1005634; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1005634. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270804A1.html
      • service"). 47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. S 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. S 2.815(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270804A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270804A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270805A1.html
      • service"). 47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. S 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. S 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 4 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270805A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270805A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270806A1.html
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service"). 47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270806A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270806A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-270807A1.html
      • S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b), 2.815(c). Section 95.655(a) of the rules states: "[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated." See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. S 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. S 2.815(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 4 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270807A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270807A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271061A1.html
      • Discovery's transmissions on the frequency 463.350 on February 24, 25, and 27, 2006, and did not hear Discovery transmit its call sign identification during any of the transmissions on those days. We therefore admonish Discovery for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Rules. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271062A1.html
      • over-power operation continued for more than one day, therefore, MRA's violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MRA apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating the station with an ERP above the limit stated on the WPPF233 license. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271063A1.html
      • repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules, by failing to comply with painting and lighting requirements specified for antenna structure # 1013252, and for failing to ensure that the structure was repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271064A1.html
      • to the San Francisco agent's inspection. For these reasons, Perreira's violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Perreira apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose both of the KIGS antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271065A1.html
      • violation was willful. The failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that PSETV, apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271066A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Aspeedynet at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director, Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. SS 15.5(b), 15.204(a), 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.204(a). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271066A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271066A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271598A1.html
      • of inspections on May 16 and 17, 2006, the agent observed that there was no Antenna Structure Registration number at the base of the tower. We admonish NBTY for failing to post the Antenna Structure Registration Number at the base of its tower in violation of Section 17.4(g). 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271599A1.html
      • was operating with more than 28 watts nighttime power at least between January 1, 2007 and February 15, 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that 127, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating station KLFJ overpower during nighttime hours. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271610A1.html
      • at HRN's home office in Lincolnton, North Carolina, 73 miles from the community of license. Based on the information before us, we find that HRN willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file at the main studio location. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at times or modes or powers other than those specified and made part of the license is $4,000 and for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272108A1.html
      • and by operating station KTMR at times not authorized by the terms of the station authorization. Additionally, Siga Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower with radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting or marking is $10,000, and violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. Although Section 1.80 does not specify a base forfeiture amount for operation at unauthorized times, this violation is comparable to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272109A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hoak Media apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1034539 in Grand Junction, Colorado. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272110A1.html
      • to CVC. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find CVC apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install and make operational EAS equipment in its cable system serving Chula Vista, California. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272111A1.html
      • was willful. The failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Phoenix 6, apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain a local main studio. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272112A1.html
      • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5) 47 U.S.C. S 302(b) 47 C.F.R. S S2.803(a)(1) 47 C.F.R. S 95.603(c) See 47 C.F.R. 95.603(c); 47 C.F.R. 2.803 47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3) See 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510 P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3) 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272112A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272112A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272113A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Global Crossing at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272113A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272113A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272125A1.html
      • Emile willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 96.7 MHz on April 1, 2006, and May 6, 2006, and by operating radio transmission equipment on 104.7 MHz on December 2, 2006, in East Orange, New Jersey, without a Commission authorization. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272194A1.html
      • been programmed incorrectly and was operating with daytime power at night. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pittman apparently repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and exceeding authorized nighttime power. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the prescribed lighting for antenna structures is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272195A1.html
      • violation. 13. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hoak Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the KGJT-LP EAS equipment and by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file violations is $10,000 and for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272196A1.html
      • Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302(b) 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). Section 95.655(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a), states: "[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated." See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272196A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272196A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-272495A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to William Cooley at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References Visible links 1. http://www.winegard.com/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272495A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272495A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273505A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273505A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273505A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273506A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273506A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273506A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273507A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). SAMPLE TEMPLATE 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273507A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273507A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273508A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273508A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273508A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273509A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273509A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273509A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273510A1.html
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273510A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273510A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273511A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273511A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273511A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273512A1.html
      • and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273512A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273512A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273513A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire; Keller and Heckman, LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273513A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273513A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273514A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Fry's Electronics 600 East Brokaw San Jose, CA 95112 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273514A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273514A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273515A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G Miller District Director, Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273515A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273515A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273516A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273516A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273516A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273517A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273517A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273517A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273518A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D.Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273518A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273518A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273519A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273519A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273519A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273520A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273520A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273520A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273521A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273521A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273521A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273522A1.html
      • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273522A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273522A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273523A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273523A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273523A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273524A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 1 June, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273524A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273524A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273525A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273525A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273525A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273526A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273526A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273526A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273527A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273527A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273527A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273528A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen Lee Resident Agent Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273528A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273528A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273529A1.html
      • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Nebraska Furniture Mart 700 South 72^nd Street Omaha, Nebraska 68114 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 30, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273529A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273529A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273530A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Field Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273530A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273530A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273531A1.html
      • and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gerardo Daubar Resident Agent Miami, FL Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273531A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273531A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273532A1.html
      • and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gerardo Daubar Resident Agent Miami, FL Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273532A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273532A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273533A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273533A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273533A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273534A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273534A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273534A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273535A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273535A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273535A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273536A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William Berry Resident Agent, San Juan, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D. Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273536A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273536A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273537A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Best Buy, Inc. 7601 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273537A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273537A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273538A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Sears Holding Corporation 3333 Beverly Road Hoffman Estates, IL 60179 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273538A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273538A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273539A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Direct Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 JUNE 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273539A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273539A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273540A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 JUNE 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273540A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273540A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273541A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273541A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273541A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273542A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273542A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273542A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273543A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273543A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273543A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273544A1.html
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273544A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273544A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273545A1.html
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273545A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273545A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273546A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 31, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273546A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273546A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273547A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273547A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273547A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273548A1.html
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director San Francisco District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273548A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273548A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273549A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273549A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273549A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273550A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273550A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273550A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273555A1.html
      • prior to the Los Angeles agent's inspection. Therefore, Lazer's violation is repeated. Where lapses occur in maintaining the public inspection file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273556A1.html
      • COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 95.603(c). See 47 C.F.R. SS 95.603(c), 2.803. 47 C.F.R. S 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL488084 (August 17, 1988). 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(a)(5) revised effective February 28, 2000. 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273556A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273556A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273557A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Renee Smith at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273557A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273557A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273558A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Tyco Electronics M/A COM Inc., West, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273558A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273558A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273559A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 9. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Jon Marcinko at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director, Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273559A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273559A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273578A1.html
      • During an inspection on April 19, 2007, Ramos admitted to operating radio transmitting equipment on 296.550 MHz from his residence. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Ramos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273679A1.html
      • an order for an EAS decoder after receiving an inspection scheduling telephone call but prior to the actual inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that L4 Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install an operational EAS decoder. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273680A1.html
      • by agent to inspect his station, Mr. Winton refused to make his CB station available for inspection. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Winton apparently willfully violated Sections 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to make his CB radio station available for inspection. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273681A1.html
      • residence in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. de Almeida is not eligible for a license to operate on these frequencies. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. de Almeida apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273682A1.html
      • property fence for more than one day. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Konarz apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower with radio frequency potential at the base within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273683A1.html
      • an effective locked fence or protective property fence. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that M.R.S. apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower, with radio frequency potential at the base, within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273684A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 9. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Uriel Berchin at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 4(i), 4(j), 403. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273684A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273684A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273802A1.html
      • of service for over a nine-month period. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Talknsports apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1740(a)(4) of the Rules by discontinuing service for over nine months without notifying the Commission or submitting an informal written request for additional time. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized discontinuance of service is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273803A1.html
      • 73.1125(a), 73.1350(b)(2) and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain full-time managerial and staff personnel at the main studio during normal business hours, failing to maintain the continuous ability to turn its transmitter off, and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at its main studio. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000, the base forfeiture amount for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273804A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis Loria District Director, Boston Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273804A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273804A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273805A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273805A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273805A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273806A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director, Boston District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273806A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273806A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273807A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston Office Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273807A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273807A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273808A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office North East Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273808A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273808A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273809A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office North East Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273809A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273809A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273810A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273810A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273810A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273811A1.html
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273811A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273811A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273813A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273813A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273813A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273814A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273814A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273814A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273815A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director, Columbia District Office, NE Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273815A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273815A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273816A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273816A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273816A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273817A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273817A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273817A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273818A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273818A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273818A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273819A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273819A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273819A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273820A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273820A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273820A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273821A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273821A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273821A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273822A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273822A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273822A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273823A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273823A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273823A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273824A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273824A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273824A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273825A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273825A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273825A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273826A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273826A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273826A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273918A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273918A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273918A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273919A1.html
      • any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273919A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273919A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273920A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273920A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273920A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273923A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273923A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273923A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273924A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273924A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273924A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273925A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273925A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273925A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273926A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273926A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273926A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273927A1.html
      • of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Corporate Counsel, if any See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273927A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273927A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273929A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273929A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273929A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273930A1.html
      • any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: via email Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273930A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273930A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273931A1.html
      • S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Field Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc 702 SW Eighth Street Bentonville, AR 72716 Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 May 30, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273931A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273931A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273932A1.html
      • Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director Kansas City Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273932A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273932A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273933A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273933A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273933A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273934A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273934A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273934A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273935A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273935A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273935A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273936A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gerardo Daubar Resident Agent- Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273936A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273936A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273937A1.html
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent - Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273937A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273937A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273938A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent - Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273938A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273938A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273939A1.html
      • S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Joseph P. Husnay Resident Agent Norfolk District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC RadioShack Corporation Riverfront Campus World Headquarters 300 RadioShack Circle Fort Worth, Texas 76102-1964 Joe D. Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273939A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273939A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273940A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273940A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273940A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273942A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent/ San Juan Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Joe D.Edge Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273942A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273942A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-273943A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William Berry Resident Agent, San Juan Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273943A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273943A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274066A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent San Juan Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274066A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274066A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274067A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274067A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274067A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274068A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274068A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274068A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274069A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 JUNE 4, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274069A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274069A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274070A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene Windel Resident Agent Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274070A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274070A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274071A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274071A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274071A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274072A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274072A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274072A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274073A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274073A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274073A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274074A1.html
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Big Lots, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton, District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274074A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274074A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274075A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ali Alumari at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen, Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274075A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274075A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274076A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274076A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274076A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274077A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274077A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274077A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274080A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274080A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274080A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274081A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274081A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274081A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274082A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274082A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274082A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274083A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274083A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274083A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274084A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274084A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274084A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274085A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274085A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274085A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274086A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274086A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274086A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274087A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274087A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274087A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274088A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274088A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274088A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274089A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274089A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274089A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274112A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274112A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274112A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274113A1.html
      • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274113A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274113A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274114A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274114A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274114A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274115A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274115A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274115A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274116A1.html
      • material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274116A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274116A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274117A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274117A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274117A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274118A1.html
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274118A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274118A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274119A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274119A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274119A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274133A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274133A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274133A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274134A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274134A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274134A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274135A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274135A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274135A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274136A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David A. Viglione Resident Agent Buffalo Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274136A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274136A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274137A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director District Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274137A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274137A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274138A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274138A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274138A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274139A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274139A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274139A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274140A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274140A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274140A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274142A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274142A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274142A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274143A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 4, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274143A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274143A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274144A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274144A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274144A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274146A1.html
      • Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274146A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274146A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274147A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274147A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274147A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274148A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David J. Charlton Resident Agent Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274148A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274148A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274149A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274149A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274149A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274150A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274150A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274150A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274151A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274151A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274151A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274210A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find Metro West apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its land mobile station, WQBI492, on frequency 463.2875 MHz, a frequency not authorized by its license. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274211A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274211A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274211A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274212A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis V. Loria District Director Boston Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274212A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274212A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274213A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274213A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274213A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274214A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274214A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274214A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274215A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274215A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274215A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274216A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274216A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274216A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274217A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274217A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274217A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274218A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274218A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274218A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274219A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274219A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274219A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274220A1.html
      • any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274220A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274220A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274221A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274221A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274221A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274222A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274222A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274222A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274223A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Communications Counsel See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274223A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274223A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274224A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274224A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274224A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274225A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274225A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274225A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274226A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 1, 2007 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274226A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274226A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274227A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles, District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274227A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274227A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274228A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles, District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274228A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274228A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274229A1.html
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton. District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274229A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274229A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274230A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274230A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274230A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274250A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis Loria District Director Boston Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274250A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274250A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274251A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274251A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274251A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274252A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274252A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274252A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274253A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274253A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274253A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274254A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274254A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274254A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274255A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274255A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274255A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274256A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274256A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274256A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274257A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274257A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274257A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274258A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274258A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274258A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274259A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274259A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274259A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274260A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274260A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274260A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274261A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274261A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274261A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274262A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Joseph P. Husnay Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274262A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274262A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274263A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274263A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274263A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274264A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274264A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274264A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274265A1.html
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Luther Bolden Resident Agent, Norfolk Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274265A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274265A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274266A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274266A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274266A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274267A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274267A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274267A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274268A1.html
      • any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P. 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274268A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274268A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274269A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274269A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274269A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274270A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274270A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274270A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274271A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274271A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274271A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274272A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274272A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274272A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274273A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274273A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274273A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274289A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Georgia Eagle apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violation Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WCEH's public file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000 is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274290A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Georgia Eagle apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violation Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WRPG's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274291A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Georgia Eagle apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violation Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). However, because station WQXZ's public inspection file contained a portion of the required items, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for this violation to $4,000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274292A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274292A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274292A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274293A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274293A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274293A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274294A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274294A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274294A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274295A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274295A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274295A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274296A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274296A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274296A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274297A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274297A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274297A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274298A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274298A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274298A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274299A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-4007 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274299A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274299A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274320A1.html
      • us, we find that Omnicom apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.47 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to observe the antenna structure lights on a daily basis in a manner that would ensure that all lights are working properly and failing to update tower ownership information. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274321A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274321A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274321A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274322A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James M. Roop Acting District Director Chicago Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274322A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274322A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274323A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274323A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274323A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274324A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274324A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274324A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274325A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274325A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274325A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274326A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274326A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274326A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274327A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274327A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274327A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274328A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz, Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274328A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274328A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274329A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274329A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274329A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274330A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274330A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274330A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274331A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274331A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274331A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274332A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274332A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274332A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274333A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274333A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274333A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274334A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274334A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274334A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274335A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274335A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274335A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274336A1.html
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274336A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274336A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274337A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274337A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274337A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274338A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274338A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274338A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274339A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells Dallas District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274339A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274339A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274340A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent/ City, San Juan Office, RK Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274340A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274340A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274341A1.html
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274341A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274341A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274342A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274342A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274342A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274343A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274343A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274343A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274344A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau KAM:mpr See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274344A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274344A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274347A1.html
      • KCLV-FM for a period of over nine months, therefore, Zia's violation is repeated. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Zia apparently repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment for stations KCLV(AM) and KCLV-FM. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274348A1.html
      • by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that BEC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained at the main studio location. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274349A1.html
      • 2006. Therefore, his violation is willful. Simon's violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Simon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 95.9 MHz. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274350A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Fred Grant at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274350A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274350A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274351A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274351A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274351A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274352A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Fred Caughell at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S 15.109(a). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274352A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274352A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274421A1.html
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Plascencia repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structures 1062806, 1062807, and 1062808. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274422A1.html
      • when it filed its renewal application for WPME695 on April 8, 2003. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that NSTN apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to operate from a control point listed in a valid authorization granted by the Commission. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274423A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274423A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274423A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274424A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274424A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274424A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274425A1.html
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274425A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274425A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274426A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274426A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274426A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274427A1.html
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274427A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274427A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274428A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274428A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274428A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274429A1.html
      • of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire KAM:tn See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274429A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274429A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274614A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274614A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274614A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274615A1.html
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274615A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274615A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274616A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274616A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274616A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274617A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274617A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274617A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274618A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: via electronic copy Robert S. Schwartz, Esq. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274618A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274618A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274619A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman, LLP 1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274619A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274619A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274620A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274620A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274620A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274621A1.html
      • making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274621A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274621A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274622A1.html
      • or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent Miami Office Enforcement Bureau CC: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc 702 SW Eighth Street Bentonville, AR 72716 Douglas Jarrett, Esq. Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274622A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274622A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274623A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus D. Stevens Resident Agent Miami Office Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274623A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274623A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274624A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274624A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274624A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274625A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274625A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274625A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274626A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274626A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274626A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274627A1.html
      • this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274627A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274627A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274628A1.html
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274628A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274628A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274629A1.html
      • reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274629A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274629A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274630A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274630A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274630A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274631A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274631A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274631A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274632A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274632A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274632A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274633A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274633A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274633A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274634A1.html
      • citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Cc: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001-4564 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274634A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274634A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274730A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274730A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274730A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274731A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274731A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274731A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274732A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274732A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274732A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274733A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Esq. Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274733A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274733A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274992A1.html
      • in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John R. Raymond. Honolulu Resident Agent Honolulu Resident Agent Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274992A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274992A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274993A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274993A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274993A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274994A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274994A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274994A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274995A1.html
      • to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Douglas Jarrett, Esquire Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274995A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274995A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274996A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles, District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274996A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274996A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274997A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274997A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274997A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274998A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274998A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274998A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-274999A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274999A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274999A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275000A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275000A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275000A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275251A1.html
      • to operate at the daytime power level on August 29 and 30, 2006. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Capstar willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to reduce power to the authorized nighttime levels as required by its license. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275252A1.html
      • meaningful managerial and staff presence at its local main studio, and by failing to maintain quarterly issues programs lists in its public inspection file. We also find that Radio Woodville apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275253A1.html
      • rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine McGowan District Director Seattle Field Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275253A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275253A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275705A1.html
      • the second and third quarters of 2006. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Davidson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain in its public inspection file quarterly issues/programs lists concerning the station's most significant treatment of community issues. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the Public Inspection File rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275706A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275706A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275706A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275718A1.html
      • Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 106.3 MHz in Bronx, NY on March 10, 13 and 14, 2007 without a Commission authorization and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow an inspection of his station on March 10, 2007. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit an inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275719A1.html
      • for the station. Based on the information before us, we find that Wise apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275720A1.html
      • 34 Elgin 80/81st 35 Indiana 94/95th 36 Raleigh 51st 37 Salem 51/52nd 38 Salem 82nd 39 Utica 52/53rd 40 Utica 54/55th 41 Utica 55/56th 42 Utica 58/59th 43 Utica 63/64th 44 Indiana 73rd 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275720A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275720A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275721A1.html
      • 34 Elgin 80/81st 35 Indiana 94/95th 36 Raleigh 51st 37 Salem 51/52nd 38 Salem 82nd 39 Utica 52/53rd 40 Utica 54/55th 41 Utica 55/56th 42 Utica 58/59th 43 Utica 63/64th 44 Indiana 73rd 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275721A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275721A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275768A1.html
      • on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Radio Plus Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the WFDL AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275769A1.html
      • or repair the condition of the fence until the inspection by the Denver agents on March 6, 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Brahmin apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain the KRAE antenna structure within an effective enclosure. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275770A1.html
      • for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MIP apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1024137 in Grand Junction, Colorado. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275912A1.html
      • has occurred on more than one day and is, therefore, repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sprint apparently repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act, and Section 17.23 of the Rules, by failing to comply with the lighting requirements specified for antenna structure #1245660. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275913A1.html
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service"). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275913A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275913A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275914A1.html
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service"). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275914A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275914A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-275915A1.html
      • operate at a station authorized for the CB service"). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a); see also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275915A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275915A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276077A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Christian Family Network apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing to operate a radio station on 1500 KHz in Battle Creek, MI after the expiration of its license for station WOLY on October 1, 2004. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276078A1.html
      • that the violation was willful. Because the violation continued for more than one day, it was repeated. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mondgock apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an amateur radio station without a valid license. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmitting equipment without an instrument of authorization is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276079A1.html
      • Radio's violation occurred on more than one day; therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Action Radio willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the EAS equipment at KZZR(AM) and KQHC-FM. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276228A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to the City at their address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attn: Frank Penry Traffic Division Public Works Department 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276228A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276228A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276378A1.html
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day. Therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CB Shop apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale a non-certified CB transceiver. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276655A1.html
      • of a candidate for public office. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Ridge apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a political file in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276656A1.html
      • for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Southern apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to obtain Commission approval prior to relocating and operating aural STL station WPXT310. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276991A1.html
      • 2007. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bravo Mic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WMU297 from its licensed location. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276992A1.html
      • of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1015782; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1015782. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276993A1.html
      • which Grinton failed to transmit his assigned call sign (K7VNI). Grinton was previously warned by the Seattle Office that any subsequent violation of the Commission's Rules could result in monetary forfeitures. Consequently, Grinton's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000 and base forfeiture amount for failure to provide station ID is $1,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277174A1.html
      • 2007. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Carlsbad Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WGW926 from its licensed location. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277175A1.html
      • therefore, its violation is willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that JMK apparently willfully and repeated violated Section 73.44(b) of the Rules by failing to adequately attenuate the spurious emissions on 1810 kHz. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277176A1.html
      • is repeated." 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Campbell willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 97.7 MHz in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 5, 2006, October 12, 2006 and December 21, 2006, without a Commission authorization. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277177A1.html
      • 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302(b) 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). Section 95.655(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a), states: "[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated." See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277177A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277177A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277178A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Gold Motors at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen, Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277178A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277178A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277580A1.html
      • we find that New World apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at its main studio and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available the public inspection file upon request. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for public file violations is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277581A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Atlas Fitness Center at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277581A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277581A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277582A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William Berry Resident Agent, San Juan, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277582A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277582A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277659A1.html
      • EAS decoder for station KMZE until after August 14, 2007. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcasters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277675A1.html
      • period. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Omni apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277832A1.html
      • before us, we find that Northland apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1700(b) of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file within their physical system and apparently willfully violated Section 76.1700(b) of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277833A1.html
      • MHz from a vehicle, driven and solely occupied by him, without an authorization from the Commission. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. McCollum apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without authorization from the Commission. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authority is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277834A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that PRTC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.47(a)(1), 17.50, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, failing to repaint the antenna structure, and failing to exhibit any of the required obstruction red lights. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to make required measurements or conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277835A1.html
      • 6, 2007. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WLE938 from its licensed location. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277836A1.html
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day. Therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pace apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importing or marketing of unauthorized equipment is 7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277837A1.html
      • violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that AMERI-KING apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act of the Rules by operating an ELT on 406.025 MHz without the appropriate authorization from the Commission. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without a license is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277838A1.html
      • of ELTs occurred on more than one day, therefore, its violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Compatible apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act of the Rules by testing and operating ELTs without the appropriate authorization from the Commission. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without a license is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277839A1.html
      • failure to maintain a main studio occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bennett Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain an accessible main studio in its community of license. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277840A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Southern California Microwave, Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears, Jr. District Director, San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S 302(b). 47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277840A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277840A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277876A1.html
      • willful. The unauthorized operation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Velazquez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating station WPUH745 on the frequency 451.900 MHz at an unauthorized location. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277877A1.html
      • period. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Omni apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions were available during the times the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277878A1.html
      • in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Mr. Bazile admitted to operating the radio station from his business location for two days. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Bazile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277879A1.html
      • their CB radio station in violation of the Rules, consequently, pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules, the Campos' were not authorized to operate under Section 301 of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that the Campos' willfully violated Section 301 of the Act. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277880A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to The Village Gym at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277880A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277880A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277881A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277881A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277881A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277882A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277882A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277882A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277883A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277883A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277883A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277884A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277884A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277884A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277885A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Reuben Jusino Resident Agent, San Juan, Office, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Via Fax: Mr. Luis Jimenez at 787-776-3044 See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277885A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277885A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277886A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director, Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277886A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277886A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277887A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to MATCO, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine Deaton District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277887A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277887A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277888A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277888A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277888A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277889A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277889A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277889A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277890A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277890A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277890A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277891A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277891A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277891A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-277892A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277892A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277892A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278098A1.html
      • with Section 17.57 of the Rules. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Metro apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a), 17.48(a), and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to comply with the antenna structure lighting, notification, and registration requirements for antenna structure # 1018735. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or painting is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278099A1.html
      • Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 94.5 MHz in Bronx, NY on March 3, 14, and 31, 2007 without a Commission authorization, and willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station on March 14, 2007. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit a station inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278100A1.html
      • maintain a complete public inspection file, and failing to maintain an effective locked enclosure around the energized base of one of the station's towers. We find that Star Power also apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000; violation of the public inspection file rule is $10,000; and failing to maintain an effective tower enclosure at the base of the tower is $7,000. However, because station WIQR's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278101A1.html
      • of the Rules by failing to maintain its antenna structure's paint in good condition, and failing to exhibit all of the required obstruction red lights. We also find that Telecom apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR number at its antenna structure. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278102A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278102A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278102A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278243A1.html
      • report, and the current station authorization. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Broadcasters, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to have operational EAS and failing to maintain or make available a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System is $8,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to make available a complete public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278244A1.html
      • 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that IBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.50 and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to maintain the paint of its antenna structure in good condition, and failing to notify the Commission of a change in structure ownership. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278246A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278246A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278246A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278367A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Claro apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a main studio and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating the station at a power level exceeding that specified in its license. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278368A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278368A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278368A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278369A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278369A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278369A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278370A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278370A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278370A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278371A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278371A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278371A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278642A1.html
      • FCC agents determined is emitted by the Yaesu transceiver found in Doe's possession. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Doe willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on public safety frequencies in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, without Commission authorization. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278643A1.html
      • 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that First Baptist apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to install the required EAS decoding/receiving equipment and failing to maintain a full-time managerial and staff presence at the station's main studio. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for not installing the required EAS equipment is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rules is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278644A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director, Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278644A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278644A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278796A1.html
      • registration number 1023390; by failing to monitor, either visually or through an automatic monitoring system, the antenna structure's lights; failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting; and by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information on antenna structure number 1023390. 18. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking of an antenna structure is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278797A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278797A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278797A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278798A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278798A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278798A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278799A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278799A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278799A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278800A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278800A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278800A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278801A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278801A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278801A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278802A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David J. Charlton Resident Agent, Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278802A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278802A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278960A1.html
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CC Licenses apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the WSYR antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is seven thousand dollars, $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278961A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Skalecki willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 92.9 MHz in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on March 25, 2006, May 6, 2006, March 1, 2007, March 14, 2007, and May 24, 2007, without a Commission authorization. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278962A1.html
      • station's chief operator admitted that the station has not had EAS equipment since he became the chief operator in January 2007. Based on the evidence before us, we find that VOX apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278963A1.html
      • file any of these agreements. Based on the evidence before us, we find that RCN apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a Political File in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves the Northampton, Pennsylvania area. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278964A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278964A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278964A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278965A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278965A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278965A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278966A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278966A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278966A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278967A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278967A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278967A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278968A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ramiro Ornelas at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278968A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278968A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278969A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278969A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278969A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-278970A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278970A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278970A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279188A1.html
      • station's authorized power. We also find that Viva willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to maintain operational EAS equipment. We further find that Viva willfully and repeatedly violation Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain issues/programs lists for a two-year period. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limits and operating at less than 90% of the station's authorized power is $4000, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an operational EAS system is $8000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279189A1.html
      • with the station license. During the November 16, 2006 studio inspection, the agent observed that there was no written chief operator designation. During the inspection, WYGG's station manager admitted that there was no designated chief operator. We therefore admonish MBHD for violating Section 73.1870 of the Rules. E. Forfeiture Amount 25. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the rules. The base forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279190A1.html
      • between April 26, 2007, and April 29, 2007. BCBA was aware of the requirement to operate KGNU(AM) at the power levels authorized on its license, but failed to do so. Therefore, the violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279191A1.html
      • was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Susainathan apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a) and 1.947(a) of the Rules by operating fixed base transmitters from locations not authorized by the licenses. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279192A1.html
      • 73.1250. Tabback was aware of the requirement to operate KAZM(AM) at the power levels, hours of operation, and nighttime directional pattern authorized on its license, but failed to do so. Therefore, the violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, the violation was repeated. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain a directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279193A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279193A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279193A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279194A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279194A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279194A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279195A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279195A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279195A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279196A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279196A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279196A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279197A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279197A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279197A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279432A1.html
      • for the tower. Finally, he admitted that he was aware that his operation of an unlicensed radio station was illegal. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Gaye apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279433A1.html
      • Florida. Mr. Maignan admitted that he purchased and set up the radio station equipment without a license from the Commission. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Maignan apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279434A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279434A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279434A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279435A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279435A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279435A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279727A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tuff-Star-Jam apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because WWSD (AM)'s public inspection file contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279728A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279728A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279728A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279729A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279729A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279729A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279730A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to WestCom Wireless, Inc. at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279730A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279730A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279739A1.html
      • lists were not maintained in the public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hensley Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain an issues/programs list in the station's public inspection file for any quarter during 2006. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because WWII's public file was mostly complete and missing only one item, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279953A1.html
      • station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation, because Section 301 of the Act provides that "no person shall use or operate" radio transmission equipment. Taken together, we find that Mr. Whitely's actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279954A1.html
      • WGBB station management of the incorrect ownership information on the ASR. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that WGBB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change of ownership of its antenna structure. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. We find that failure to notify the FAA of a tower light outage and failure to immediately notify the Commission of a change in antenna structure ownership constitute failures
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279955A1.html
      • by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1207183; by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1207183. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279956A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279956A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279956A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279957A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279957A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279957A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279958A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279958A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279958A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279959A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279959A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279959A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279960A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279960A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279960A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279961A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279961A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279961A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279962A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279962A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279962A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-279963A1.html
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Napa Auto Parts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen, Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279963A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279963A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280116A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to J. Schatz & D. Martinez at their record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280116A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280116A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280117A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280117A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280117A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280118A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280118A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280118A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280119A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280119A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280119A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280120A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280120A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280120A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280121A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280121A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280121A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280122A1.html
      • Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). Sprint-Nextel holds a Specialized Mobile Radio Service License KNNX426 under the name FCI 900, Inc. that authorizes Sprint-Nextel to operate a cellular system in the frequency band 900.00625 MHz through 900.13125 MHz in the Philadelphia Market. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280122A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280122A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280123A1.html
      • U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Exxon Mobil Corporation at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.5(b), 15.204(a), 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.204(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.204(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280123A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280123A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280418A1.html
      • 9:00 PM-CST. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Rackley apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to broadcast from its authorized location and operating at a power level in excess of that authorized by its license. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at unauthorized locations is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280419A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280419A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280419A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280420A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280420A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280420A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280421A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280421A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280421A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280558A1.html
      • the requirements of the rules and regulations of the Commission. On January 11, 2007, and January 7, 2008, Clemons refused to allow agents to inspect the station. We therefore find that Clemons willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit an inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280559A1.html
      • the agents that he knew he was operating on a frequency that was not authorized for use by amateur licensees. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Barbosa apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280560A1.html
      • to respond. Therefore, Action's violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Action apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act by failing to respond to Commission correspondence. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280561A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280561A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280561A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280562A1.html
      • sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Fry's Electronics, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280562A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280562A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280563A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280563A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280563A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280564A1.html
      • and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office, Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280564A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280564A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280705A1.html
      • us, we find that Mr. Glass apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and Section 301 of the Act by failing to have an operational EAS, failing to operate within authorized power limitations, and failing to have a license for the station's STL. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System is $8,000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to operate within authorized power limitations is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization for the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280706A1.html
      • Return Receipt Requested to King Taco Restaurants, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.5(b), 15.205(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.205(a). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280706A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280706A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280707A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280707A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280707A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280823A1.html
      • however, until May 23, 2007, more than one year later. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Holmes willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership information for antenna structure number # 1017802. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information with the Commission is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280824A1.html
      • caused interference to a co-channel licensee. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Traffic Controll apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules by operating station WPNP358 for several months, on frequency 467.8375 MHz, outside of the 32 km radius specified within its license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating at an unauthorized location is $4000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280825A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Wells District Director, Dallas Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280825A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280825A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-280826A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephanie Dabkowski Resident Agent, Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280826A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280826A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281010A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Stephanie Dabkowski Resident Agent, Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281010A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281010A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281011A1.html
      • willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281011A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281011A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281213A1.html
      • request, the Portland Agent read and explained Section 95.426(a) of the Rules (CB Rule 26) to Barber. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jeremy William Barber apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to permit inspection. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281214A1.html
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day; therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kersnowski apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281215A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281215A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281215A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281216A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281216A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281216A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281217A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281217A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281217A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281218A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281218A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281218A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281219A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281219A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281219A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281220A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281220A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281220A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281221A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281221A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281221A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281222A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281222A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281222A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281346A1.html
      • Section 95.404 of the Rules. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4, August 16, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281347A1.html
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Colomex apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating station WQBI487 on frequencies other than those authorized by its license. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281348A1.html
      • been operating from this location for over eight years; therefore, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Radio One apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station KSZ63 from its licensed location. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281349A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281349A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281349A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281350A1.html
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to High Mark Communications, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281350A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281350A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281507A1.html
      • The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. 12. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clouden apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an FM radio transmitter without a license on 101.3 MHz in Boston, MA. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281508A1.html
      • and facilities incidental to the transmission of communications by radio. We find that Mr. Rodriguez is responsible for the unlicensed station operation on 90.5 MHz at 276 Ellison Street, Paterson, NJ 07501 and that his actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281509A1.html
      • we find that Owner apparently willfully violated Section 17.47(g) of the Rules by failing to post the ASR numbers at the bases of his antenna structures and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to repaint his antenna structures to maintain their visibility. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post an ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281510A1.html
      • was still unable to take its station off the air at sunset. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ASA apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to go off the air post sunset as specified in the station authorization. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281511A1.html
      • before us, we find that Halifax apparently willfully violated Section 73.845 of the Rules by operating its station inconsistent with the terms of its station authorization (overpower and with an unauthorized antenna) and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed station. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base amount for operating an unlicensed station is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281512A1.html
      • find that Phillips apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available complete inspection files for Stations WOAC and WFOY and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for Stations WOAC and WFOY. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because the public inspection files for stations WAOC and WFOY contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 for each station is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281513A1.html
      • therefore, its violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KLIP apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.605(a)(12) of the Rules by operating a cable system in violation of signal leakage standards. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281514A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281514A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281514A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281515A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281515A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281515A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281516A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281516A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281516A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281517A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James T. Higgins District Director Columbia Field Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281517A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281517A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281518A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director, Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281518A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281518A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281656A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281656A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281656A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281657A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281657A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281657A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281658A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office] Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281658A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281658A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281659A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281659A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281659A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281660A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281660A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281660A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281661A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Peter J. Esposito, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281661A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281661A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281662A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Macy's at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281662A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281662A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281663A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281663A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281663A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-281664A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281664A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281664A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282140A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Magothy Communication Associates at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282140A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282140A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282164A1.html
      • 15. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jean Idalbert apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 90.9 MHz in Brooklyn, NY on August, 26 and December 15, 2007, and February 23, 2008, without a Commission authorization. 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282165A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that D-Mitch apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000. and failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the Public File is $10,000. Because station WBSC's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282166A1.html
      • bedroom, that was later determined capable of operating on channel 16, and an antenna just outside of his bedroom. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Doe apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 325 of the Act by making false distress calls to the USCG. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture for violation of false distress communications is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282167A1.html
      • Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Oliver K. Long Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282167A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282167A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282177A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Perihelion apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49, 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(a)(2) of the Rules by failing to enclose the antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure, failing to maintain a main studio, and failing to transmitting the station identification. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7000, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintaining a main studio is $7000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to transmitting
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282178A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282178A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282178A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282179A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282179A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282179A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282180A1.html
      • S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803(a)(1), 2.815(b), 2.815(c). Section 95.655(a) of the rules states: "[CB] Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated." 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a). See also Amendment of the Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal Radio Services Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282180A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282180A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282181A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282181A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282181A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282249A1.html
      • had not painted or installed red lights on the structure since it acquired the structure on September 11, 1996. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Union Pacific apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules by failing to paint and light antenna structure #1065191. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking (painting) is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282250A1.html
      • First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Greg's Pro Audio, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282250A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282250A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282251A1.html
      • Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to 4 KAMM International, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282251A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282251A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282252A1.html
      • by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to EJ Enterprises, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282252A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282252A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282253A1.html
      • First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Max Sales Group, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282253A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282253A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282593A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Friendship apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because the public inspection file for station KWOF-FM contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282594A1.html
      • until March 1, 2008, therefore we find these violations were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Princess K Fishing Corporation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 80.89(a) of the Rules by engaging in superfluous radio communications resulting in the transmission of false distress communications. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for transmitting false distress communications is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282595A1.html
      • by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MBR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files at the main studio location for stations KIQQ(AM) and KIQQ-FM. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282596A1.html
      • one day. Therefore, the violation is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Orvac apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing uncertified intentional radiators, specifically, wireless video cameras and transmitters operating on 2.4 GHz. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282597A1.html
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to New Tung Kee at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.19(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 308(b), 403. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282597A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282597A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282770A1.html
      • the Rules by operating station WIFI with excessive power, by failing to maintain fully operational EAS equipment for station WIFI, by failing to maintain an effective locked fence around a WIFI antenna tower, and by failing to maintain the radio issues/programs lists in the WIFI public inspection file. 26. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating with excessive power is $4,000, failing to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000, and failing to maintain an effective tower enclosure at the base of the tower is $7,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282771A1.html
      • had been occurring since 2001. We therefore find that the violation was repeated. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bear Creek apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 462.500 MHz without a license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmitting equipment without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282773A1.html
      • The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282773A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282773A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-282956A1.html
      • knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David J. Charlton Resident Agent Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282956A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282956A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283149A1.html
      • the Act. The violation was repeated because it occurred on more than one day. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Louis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by providing services and facilities incidental to the transmission of communications by radio. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283150A1.html
      • therefore the violation was repeated. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Kissi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 96.5 MHz in Bronx, NY on February 28 and March 1, 2008, without a Commission authorization. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283151A1.html
      • was willful. The violation continued for more than one day; therefore, the violation was repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Chladek apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain radio issues/programs lists in the public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because Chladek's public file was mostly complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283152A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Aulabaugh apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the Public File is $10,000. Because the public inspection files for stations KSEY and KSEY-FM contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283153A1.html
      • workers who were not fully aware of the potential for exposure, and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent access to an area that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. We note that if Visionary had been operating at its full authorized power, the RFR levels would be significantly higher. 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the RFR rules. In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283480A1.html
      • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Robert C. McKinney District Director, Kansas City Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283480A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283480A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283481A1.html
      • shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Shelton's Auto Lube and Auto Wash at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas N. Van Stavern District Director, San Francisco District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283481A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283481A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283650A1.html
      • one day and therefore was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Atlantic Broadband apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a Political File in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves Clearfield, Pennsylvania. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283651A1.html
      • file any of these agreements. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Adams apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 76.1701(a) of the Rules by failing to retain a Political File in the public inspection file for the cable television system that serves the Carbondale, Pennsylvania area. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283652A1.html
      • cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas Miller District Director, Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau Analog tuner only television receiving equipment includes televisions, television receivers, and other television receiving equipment, such as video-cassette recorders and digital video recorders, that are covered by the Commission's digital television reception capability implementation schedule. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283652A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283652A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-283836A1.html
      • by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Wolfcom Enterprises, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leo E. Cirbo Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283836A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283836A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284298A1.html
      • before us, we find that Telava apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise and failing to notify immediately the Commission of a change of ownership of the Tower with ASR number 1050197. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000, and failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284299A1.html
      • violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Greeley Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain the KGRE antenna structure within an effective enclosure. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to enclose the antenna structure within an effective locked fence or other enclosure is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284300A1.html
      • was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Starfish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating an earth station in the fixed satellite service without the benefit of a license granted by the Commision. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284301A1.html
      • undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. 9 Based on the evidence before us, we find that Creative apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files at the main studio location for station KTOX(AM). 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rules is ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284302A1.html
      • was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Albino Ortega and Maria Juarez apparently willfully violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain an effective locked fence surrounding KIGO's antenna tower. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked fence is seven thousand dollars is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284303A1.html
      • and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Playa apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 74.1236(c) of the Rules by failing to adequately attenuate by at least 60 db the spurious emissions from its translator station, K238AK, on 109.5 MHz, 122.2 MHz, and 136.1 MHz. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284304A1.html
      • E, Technical Regulations in the Personal RadioService Rules, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.815(c). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.815(b). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284304A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284304A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284454A1.html
      • and 73.3526(e)(12) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") by failing to operate its broadcast station in a manner which complies with the terms of the station authorization, operating a Studio Transmitter Link on an unauthorized frequency, and failing to maintain radio issue/programs lists in the station's public inspection file. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain directional antenna pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-284455A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000 and failing to maintain quarterly issues/programs lists in the public inspection file is $10,000. Because station WLAA's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-285380A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Cho at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kristine A. McGowan District Director, Seattle District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285380A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285380A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-285863A1.html
      • 2008 by its employees. Based on the evidence before us, we find that BK apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours, at a minimum, between August 1 and September 9, 2008. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-285864A1.html
      • was repeated. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sims apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a) and 1.903(b) of the Rules by operating mobile units on the unauthorized frequency of 469.4 MHz. and a mobile relay station on the unauthorized frequency of 464.4 MHz. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286287A1.html
      • a minimum, violations occurred between June 22, 2007 and February 26, 2008. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jacksonville apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a)(1) of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower's lights or light indicator at least once every 24 hours. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286429A1.html
      • violation was willful. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Abacus Television apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating UHF translator station WIIC-LP on an unauthorized television channel and in a manner consistent with the terms of the station authorization. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286430A1.html
      • had done so on several days over the course of the summer. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Allred apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 301 and 333 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter and interfering with licensed radio communications. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and for interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286431A1.html
      • before us, we find that Rama apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules on May 9, 2008 by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286432A1.html
      • imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Manual Hernandez at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret Egler Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286432A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286432A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286479A1.html
      • Act. 11. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clerveaux and Edwards apparently repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 90.5 MHz in Brooklyn, NY on March 9, 2008, April 5, 2008 and April 6, 2008, without a Commission authorization. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286481A1.html
      • violated Section 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to display the ASR number at the base of antenna structure number 1012977 and apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.48(a) of the Rules by not reporting immediately a malfunctioning light, which could not be corrected within 30 minutes, to the FAA. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required information is $3,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286526A1.html
      • find that OMI apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours, at a minimum, between May 1 and October 9, 2008 at a time that would insure the proper operation of the antenna structure lighting. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286788A1.html
      • EAS equipment, transmitting unauthorized emissions, failing to enclose their antenna tower bases within effective fences, and failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. We also find that Black Crow apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000, unauthorized emissions is $4,000, AM tower fencing is $7,000 and violation of public file rules is $10,000. Because the WNDB public inspection file was partially complete, we conclude that a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286789A1.html
      • 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that PBS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise, and failing to notify the Commission immediately of a change in structure ownership. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286904A1.html
      • However, as of November 6, 2008, the Tower was still not registered in the ASR database. 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Millworks apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.4(a) of the Rules by failing to register its Tower located in Greenwell Springs, Louisiana. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286905A1.html
      • aware of the fence's condition. 5. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Konarz apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose a tower, with radio frequency potential at the base, within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of AM tower fencing is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286906A1.html
      • 73.3526 of the Rules by not reporting immediately a malfunctioning light, which could not be corrected within 30 minutes, to the FAA and failing to maintain a public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required information is $3,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violating public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-286907A1.html
      • 73.1620 of the Rules. Consequently, Hodson's operation of KHOD(FM) to this date has been unauthorized. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hodson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1620 of the Rules by operating KHOD(FM) at variance from the terms of the KHOD(FM) construction permit. 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287061A1.html
      • willful. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore it was repeated. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Media Logic apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WQHV648 from its licensed location. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287062A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Evans apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.49 of the Rules by failing to ensure that the AM antenna towers were enclosed within an effectively locked fence or enclosure. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to ensure that the AM antenna towers were enclosed within an effectively locked fence or enclosure is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287063A1.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mojave Unified School District at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Margaret Egler Acting Interim District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287063A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287063A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287326A1.html
      • before us, we find that Andre Alleyne and Jessie White apparently repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on 96.5 MHz at 580 Flatbush Avenue, Apartment #10D in Brooklyn, New York 11225 on July 23 and July 24, 2008, without a Commission authorization. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287327A1.html
      • 11, 2008. The violation occurred for more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mt. Rushmore apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), and 74.532(e) of the Rules by failing to operate station WHB734 from its licensed location. 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment installed but not operational is $8,000, public file violations is $10,000 and for the operation of a station from an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287328A1.html
      • operating on the unauthorized frequencies, therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Westin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating four mobile relay stations utilizing four frequency pairs not authorized by its or its affiliates' licenses. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287501A1.html
      • day, therefore, they were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Nevada Yellow Cab apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequencies not authorized on the KNNU518 license, and by operating KNNU518 from a location not authorized by its license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for operating land mobile stations from a location not authorized by its license is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287609A1.html
      • 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the public RFR MPE limits in an area accessible by the public or by workers who were not fully aware of the potential for exposure, and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent access to an area that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. 14. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the RFR rules. In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287610A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Mapleton apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the public RFR MPE limits in areas accessible by the public, and by failing to adequately take measures to prevent access to areas that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. 15. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310. However, the Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting the public safety nature of the RFR rules. In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287611A1.html
      • of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S.Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Cal-Centron Wholesale Co., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene Windel Resident Agent Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S:S: 302a(b), 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287611A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287611A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-288038A1.html
      • operated his Amateur Radio station on an unauthorized frequency after being warned that he did not have authority to do so and because he admitted to such unauthorized operation, we find that the violation was willful. Because the violation occurred on more than one day, it was repeated. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating radio transmitting equipment on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-288039A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Dimond Mini Storage, at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David J. Charlton Resident Agent, Anchorage Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288039A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288039A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-288138A1.html
      • the violation was willful. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Smart Park apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating mobile relay stations at an unauthorized location and in a manner not consistent with the terms of the station authorization. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-288139A1.html
      • granted February 12, 2008. 7. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Bethune-Cookman apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by operating a radio transmitter without a license and by failing to install the required EAS decoder. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. The base forfeiture amount for not installing the required EAS equipment is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-289661A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Perka apparently, willfully and repeatedly operated in the Maritime Radio Service without a license in violation of Section 301 of the Act and apparently willfully violated Section 333 of the Act by maliciously interfering with USCG communications on Marine Channel 16. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-289662A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that ERF Wireless apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit continuously the medium intensity lighting on its antenna structure and failing to notify immediately the Commission of the ownership change for this structure. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-289821A1.html
      • regular business hours but were unable to access the file. KHLU-LP is aware of the requirement to maintain a public inspection file, given its certification in its most recent license renewal, therefore its violation was willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000, the base forfeiture for failing to comply with the main studio requirements is $7,000, and the base forfeiture for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290027A1.html
      • by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1023097; by failing to monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; and by failing to report the extinguishment of the flashing obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1023097. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290028A1.html
      • 95.655(a); see also Amendment of Part 95, Subpart E, Technical Regulations in the Personal RadioService Rules, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5032 (1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290028A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290028A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290762A1.html
      • 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to operate its station in accordance with the terms of the station authorization by operating with an antenna model and orientation not authorized by its station license, operating at an unauthorized location, and failing to install required Emergency Alert System (EAS) equipment. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain directional pattern within prescribed parameters is $7,000, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS equipment is $8,000. In
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290763A1.html
      • 73.1620 of the Rules. Consequently, Hodson's operation of KHOD(FM) to this date has been unauthorized. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hodson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1620 of the Rules by operating KHOD(FM) at variance from the terms of the KHOD(FM) construction permit. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290777A1.html
      • willful. It occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Spirit apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the KMBQ(AM) antenna tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective AM base fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290778A1.html
      • by fine or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Diamond Tool at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290778A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290778A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290798A1.html
      • occurred for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MRBI apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1014422 in Pomona, California. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290811A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, we find that Eight Friends apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a base station on the frequencies 461.400 MHz and 469.450 MHz and mobile units on the frequencies 466.400 MHz and 469.450 MHz, without the required license. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290812A1.html
      • one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Lazer Broadcasting apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure numbers 1013829 and 1013830 in Santa Barbara, California. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file forms or required information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290813A1.html
      • to the inspection but then refused. Bondy was aware of the requirement to make his radio equipment available to the agent, as the agent explained the requirement to Bondy. Consequently, we find that Bondy apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unlicensed operation is $10,000; the base forfeiture for interference is $7,000; and the base forfeiture for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290814A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Timothy J. Teligades at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290814A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290814A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291111A1.html
      • facilities used in the operation of the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Severino apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 101.5 MHz on October 15, 2008 and April 15, 2009. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000.8 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291275A1.html
      • day, we conclude that the violation was repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that WKLJ apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain a main studio for WFBZ in compliance with the Commission's Rules. IV. FORFEITURE AMOUNT 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the main studio rule is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291276A1.html
      • Because the violation occurred on more than one day, the violation was repeated. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that R-S Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain radio issues/programs lists in the station's public inspection file. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291277A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Telos Online at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291277A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291277A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291888A1.html
      • before us, we find that Jackson willfully violated Section 11.35 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to have an operational Emergency Alert System (EAS) and failing to have an effective locked fence or other enclosures around the antenna structure. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for EAS equipment not installed or operational and AM tower fencing are $8,000 and $7,000, respectively. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291889A1.html
      • be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Larry Kaufman at his record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director, San Diego Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 147 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 247 C.F.R. 15.5(b) and 15.29(a). 347 C.F.R. 15.1 et seq. 447 C.F.R. 15.5(b). 547 C.F.R. 15.29(a). 647 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 747 U.S.C. 401, 501, 503, 510. 847 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 9See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). 10See 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291889A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291889A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291890A1.html
      • that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to USA1 Communications Corp., Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291890A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291890A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291964A1.html
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr. Albert Lucero at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291964A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291964A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-291966A1.html
      • of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to BQE Auto Body Shop at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director, New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291966A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291966A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292254A1.html
      • ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Grand N Realty LLC at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292254A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292254A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292255A1.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ricardo Moore at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292255A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292255A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292572A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Data Flow Systems, Inc., at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven DeSena Resident Agent Miami Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292572A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292572A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292670A1.html
      • residence and that he knew he was not supposed to be operating the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 87.9 MHz from his residence. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292671A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Marcos A. Santos at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292671A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292671A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292790A1.html
      • 22, 2007 for operating an unlicensed radio station from his residence. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Frank apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on July 22, 2009 and August 3, 2009. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292932A1.html
      • as to whether his violation was willful, as he intentionally operated the station. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Grover apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 87.9 MHz from the Lakeside Inn. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-292933A1.html
      • of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Irma Frausto at her address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director, Los Angeles Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.1 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292933A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292933A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293167A1.html
      • station personnel were unable to make available Issues/Programs lists for the years 2007, 2008, and the first quarter of 2009. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WSKQ apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because only a portion of the WSKQ-FM public inspection file was not available at the time of inspection, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $4,000 is warranted.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293168A1.html
      • station personnel were unable to make available Issues/Programs lists for the years 2007, 2008, and the first quarter of 2009. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WPAT apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because only a portion of the WPAT-FM public inspection file was not available at the time of inspection, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $4,000 is warranted.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293305A1.html
      • that they had not notified the FAA regarding the outage. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Foundation, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules by failing to exhibit all medium intensity obstruction lighting as specified, between May 10 and 18, 2009. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293306A1.html
      • for more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Burken apparently repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure # 1219542 in Las Vegas, Nevada. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293307A1.html
      • willful. The violation occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Roberts apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 87.9 MHz in San Francisco, California. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a radio transmitter without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293418A1.html
      • of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was operational when the station was in operation between May 15, 2007 and February 13, 2009 and failing to maintain a full-time managerial and staff presence at the station's main studio on July 7 and August 3, 2009. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for not having operational EAS equipment installed and not maintaining a meaningful management and staff presence are $8,000 and $7,000, respectively. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293419A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 7. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Patton Radio Service at its record of address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293419A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293419A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293420A1.html
      • this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Hinkletown at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293420A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293420A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293619A1.html
      • in 2004. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Verizon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.21(a) of the Rules by failing to paint or light its antenna structure in Hartwell, GA from the date the structure was constructed in March 2004 until August 18, 2009. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed painting and/or marking is $10,000 and for failure to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293822A1.html
      • monitor the antenna structure's lights, using a properly maintained indicator designed to register any lighting failure; by failing to maintain the structure painting and lighting in accordance with the ASR specifications, and by failing to report the extinguishment of the top flashing red beacon on antenna structure #1002607. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293823A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. Having held an authorization before, Tropicana was aware such operations required a license. Therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Tropicana apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-293824A1.html
      • Based on the evidence before us, we find that Shimmick-Obayashi apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to operate in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in the Commission's Rules and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for use of an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294206A1.html
      • note in the public file indicating that the political files could be found in binders on top of the cabinet. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Univision apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because the public inspection file for station WQBU-FM contained a portion of the required items a downward adjustment of the base amount to $4,000 is warranted. In assessing the monetary
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294207A1.html
      • violation continued for more than one day; therefore, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Paisa apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating its base station and mobile radios on a frequency not authorized on the WQEQ855 license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294208A1.html
      • ownership information. 9. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ECPI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules by failing to exhibit all medium intensity obstruction lighting as specified and failing to immediately notify the Commission upon change in ownership information. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294712A1.html
      • a radio station solely within the borders of Texas. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Jerry and Deborah Stevens apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on September 21, 2009 and October 16, 2009. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294713A1.html
      • written NOUO prior to the inspection conducted on August 22, 2009. Based on the evidence and technical information before us, we find that Ayustar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmitters without a license on March 11 and August 22, 2009. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294714A1.html
      • Holiday Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James A. Bridgewater District Director Detroit Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294714A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294714A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-294715A1.html
      • Requested to Clarion Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 U.S.C. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294715A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294715A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295044A1.html
      • obstruction lighting for several months. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Marconi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to observe the obstruction lighting at least once each 24 hours to insure the proper operation of the antenna structure lighting. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295045A1.html
      • Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Pinecomputer at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nadar Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295045A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295045A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295187A1.html
      • Requested to Duke Energy at their address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Joseph P. Husnay Resident Agent Norfolk District Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(n). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b) 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295187A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295187A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295384A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. As the holder of multiple FCC licenses, Wal-Mart was aware such operations required a license. Therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Wal-Mart apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295385A1.html
      • more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. As the holder of multiple FCC licenses, Costco was aware such operations required a license. Therefore, the violation was willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Costco apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295386A1.html
      • with multiple broadcast holdings, HTM is aware of the requirement to maintain a public inspection file. Therefore, its violation was willful. Because no public inspection file was ever maintained since the beginning of KUKY's operations, the violation has occurred on more than one day, therefore, it was repeated. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295453A1.html
      • occurred on more than one day, therefore, it is repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Waldec willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.23 of the Rules by failing to conform the lighting on antenna structure number 1253674 with the FAA recommendations for the antenna structure. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting specifications is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295588A1.html
      • on frequency 107.3 MHz from his first floor apartment at 4643 Bronx Boulevard. We find that Mr. Reid is responsible for the unlicensed station operation on 107.3 MHz at 4643 Bronx Boulevard and that his actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295589A1.html
      • station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation, because Section 301 of the Act provides that "no person shall use or operate" radio transmission equipment. Taken together, we find that Luna Park's actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295590A1.html
      • and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mark Nierman and Kakadu apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on the frequency 99.9 MHz in Brooklyn, New York. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295591A1.html
      • Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295591A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295591A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295818A1.html
      • November 8, 2006, January 27, 2007, and on March 2, 2007, in Paterson, NJ, without a Commission authorization and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his station on November 8, 2006, January 27, 2007, and March 2, 2007. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295820A1.html
      • failing to maintain an effective locked fence or other enclosure at the base of the station's antenna tower and failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Stone/Collins apparently willfully violated Section 73.3536 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain an effective locked tower fence or enclosure is $7,000; and failing to maintain a public file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295821A1.html
      • failing to maintain an effective locked fence around the base of its antenna tower, and failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Rodgson apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file during normal business hours. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an operational EAS system is $8,000; failure to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000; and failure to maintain an effective locked fence or enclosure at the base of the antenna structure is $7,000. In
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295903A1.html
      • Florida. Mr. Magloire admitted to operating the radio station for approximately 2-3 months from First Residence and his current residence. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Magloire apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-295904A1.html
      • find that Marixsa Rolon is responsible for the unlicensed station operations on 90.1 MHz and 96.7 MHz at 217 East 7th Avenue, Plainfield, New Jersey and that her actions amounted to willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act on August 2, 3 and 4, 2009. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296089A1.html
      • Section 95.404 of the Rules. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4, August 16, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission. 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296090A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Big Fish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure numbers 1044859 and 1066000 and failing to notify the FAA immediately of prolonged obstruction light outages. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296091A1.html
      • license held by Cerritos Ford was WQKA311 which authorized five different frequencies in the Industrial Radio Service. Based on the evidence before us, we find Cerritos Ford apparently repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 467.675 MHz, a frequency not authorized in its license. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296092A1.html
      • lights, using a properly maintained indicator and/or automatic alarm system designed to register or detect any lighting failure; by failing to maintain the structure lighting in accordance with the ASR specifications, and by failing to report the extinguishment of the top flashing red beacon on antenna structure #1012525. 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296093A1.html
      • before us, we find that Gila apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by failing to operate in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in the Commission's Rules and with the terms of its authorization granted by the Commission. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296094A1.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Kevin Whitfield at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). Id.. 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296094A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296094A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296217A1.html
      • was installed and operational, failing to display the ASR number in a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure, failing to notify the FAA of a light outage, and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 13. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have operational EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296218A1.html
      • we find that KFW apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to ensure that EAS equipment was installed and operational, failing to report an outage to the FAA, and failing to exhibit all red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have operational EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296219A1.html
      • Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau Attachment 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296219A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296219A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296220A1.html
      • copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S.Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Sonic Drive-In Restaurant at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas G. Miller District Director, Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(m). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(c). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296220A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296220A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296382A1.html
      • by anyone else. Thus, there was no verification of whether or not the station was operating with authorized power, and no initiation of any corrective action for the overpower condition that had been ongoing for several months. We therefore admonish Caron for violating Section 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. Because station WKAT's public inspection file contained a portion of the items required, a downward adjustment of the base
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296383A1.html
      • and Information Bureau Warn Against the Manufacture, Importation, Marketing or Operation of Transmitters Designed to Prevent or Otherwise Interfere with Cellular Radio Communications. DA 99-2150, released October 12, 1999; Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States. DA 05-1776, released June 27, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296383A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296383A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296408A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that PRTC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.48 and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to notify the FAA immediately of a lighting outage and failing to exhibit all of the required red obstruction lights on January 12 and 18, 2010. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296578A1.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Telecom Inc. at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 90.427(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296578A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296578A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296705A1.html
      • that the violation was willful. Because the violation occurred for more than one day, the violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Multicultural apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a political file. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public inspection file rule is $10,000 per station. Because the public inspection file for stations WZRC and WKDM was largely complete, a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $4,000 per station is warranted.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296706A1.html
      • days in November 2008. According to Clarion, the station's transmitter had not malfunctioned on any of those days. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Clarion apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times beyond the station's post sunset authorization. 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $4,000 for unauthorized emissions. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296707A1.html
      • agents also recognized Mr. Senat's voice as that of DJ "Done-Done." Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Senat apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 91.3 MHz from a residence in Orlando, Florida. 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296708A1.html
      • address. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William R. Zears Jr. District Director San Diego District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. 90.427(b). Station WQIM291 is authorized a pair of VHF frequencies in the Conventional Industrial/Business Pool. Station WNHS767 is authorized a pair of 800 MHz frequencies in the Conventional Public Safety/Special Emergency 801-821/851-866 Pool. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296708A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296708A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296841A1.html
      • September 1, 2009. We further find that Paul Parara, Richard Parara, and Delroy Johnson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by providing services and facilities incidental to the unlicensed operation on 97.5 MHz in Hyde Park on July 14, 2009 and July 16, 2009 18. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296989A1.html
      • inspection, Mr. Davis, as the owner of the structure, was required to maintain the painting and lighting requirements assigned to the antenna structure until the structure is dismantled. See 47 U.S.C. S: 303(q). On May 4, 2008, the agent notified the FAA of the outage, and the FAA issued a Notice to Airmen ("NOTAM") at that time. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296989A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296989A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296990A1.html
      • fine or imprisonment. 8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Terra at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nader Haghighat District Director Los Angeles District Office Western Region FCC Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296990A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296990A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296991A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Ross Store #372 at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent, Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296991A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296991A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-298097A1.html
      • or imprisonment. 8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Costco Wholesale Store at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent, Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.5(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. Federal Communications Commission 2 Federal Communications Commission References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298097A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298097A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-300234A1.html
      • the operation of the station. The violation was repeated because it occurred on more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Blake apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on 101.5 MHz. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-300921A1.html
      • evidence before us, we find that Big Fish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 17.51(a) and 17.48 of the Rules by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure numbers 1044859 and 1066000 and failing to notify the FAA immediately of prolonged obstruction light outages. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Daniel W. Noel District Director New York District Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau CC: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-248483A1.html
      • unofficial announcement of Commission Action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 516 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974) __________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 18, 2004 NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Janice Wise at (202) 418-7450 [5]Janice.Wise@FCC.GOV FCC ADJUSTS MAXIMUM FORFEITURE PENALTIES TO REFLECT INFLATION Washington, D.C.The Federal Communications Commission has amended Section 1.80(b) of its Rules to increase the maximum monetary forfeiture penalties available to it. This action implements the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2461, which requires federal agencies to adjust maximum statutory civil monetary penalties at least once every four years to reflect inflation. The amendment of Section 1.80(b) will be effective 30 days after publication in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2000.html
      • Gibsonburg, Ohio [267]Text [268]Word 09-21-2000 M.O.&O. EZ Sacramento, Inc., Sacramento, CA, Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Washington, D.C., Manassas, VA [269]Text [270]Word 09-20-2000 ORDER Commonwealth of VA State Corporation Commission v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. [271]Text [272]Word 09-19-2000 FORFEITURE ORDER Berkshire Communicators, Inc. [273]Text [274]Word 09-19-2000 ORDER Sprint Communications Company, L.P v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. [275]Text [276]Word 09-19-2000 ORDER Amendment of Section 1.80(b), Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation [277]Text [278]Word 09-15-2000 ORDER Illinois Bell Tel. Co. d/b/a Ameritech Illinois, et al v. Frontier Communications International, Inc.; WorldCom, Inc.; and, One Call Communications, Inc. [279]Text [280]Word 09-15-2000 M.O.&O. LG&E Energy Corp. [281]Text [282]Word 09-15-2000 CONSENT DECREE LG&E Energy Corp. [283]Text [284]Word 09-14-2000 M.O.&O. The Two Way Shop, Kennewick, WA [285]Text [286]Word 09-13-2000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000114.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000114.html
      • unknown reasons, the communications provider did not do so. Additionally, Mr. Varela states that he acquired HCI in September 1998 and that no one brought the license cancellation to his attention. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the San Juan Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Varela's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000119.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000119.html
      • the amount to $14,000. 2. Arnold's Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition"), requests that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') specify the amounts assessed for each violation and state whether we arrived at the forfeiture amount by using any upward or downward adjustments. In this regard, Arnold argues that the forfeiture amount is excessive and should, at most, be $11,000 in accordance with Section 1.80 of the Rules. We calculated the forfeiture against Arnold as follows: $8,000 base amount for the ( 11.35 violation adjusted upward by $2,000 ($10,000); $3,000 base amount for the ( 73.1350 violations adjusted upward by $1,000 ($4,000); $1,000 base amount for the ( 73.1820 violation; and $1,000 for the ( 73.1870 violation. We made an upward adjustment of $2,000 to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000120.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da000120.html
      • asserts that it made diligent efforts to bring the tower into compliance following notification of the lighting outages by the San Juan Office on July 3, 2000 and September 15, 2000. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining PRTC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01085.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01085.html
      • III. DISCUSSION Based on the evidence before us, we find that Telecorp Communications, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.51 of the Commission's Rules by its failure to comply with the required lighting of antenna structures and by failing to notify FAA flight service stations of the outages. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for lighting and marking violations is $10,000. Applying this base amount to each of Telecorp's lighting violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $40,000. Telecorp violated the most serious of the Commission's antenna structure rules. As the Commission stated in its ATC decision, ``[u]nlit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01086.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01086.html
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the base amount is $3,000 for each of SpectraSite's three failures to file required forms or information (i.e., failure to file ownership change information). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01087.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01087.html
      • the Act by a common carrier. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined that an appropriate base amount is $2,000 per violation. Application of that base amount to each of AT&T Wireless' violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $18,000. We
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011000.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011000.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Litelco's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011001.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011001.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Neclec's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011002.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011002.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Net-Tel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011003.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011003.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that NPI's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011004.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011004.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that NATC's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011005.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011005.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that North County's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011006.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011006.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Optel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011007.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011007.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Paging Source's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011008.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011008.html
      • act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that R and G Distributors' failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011009.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011009.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Trivergent's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011010.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011010.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that USA Mobile's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011011.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011011.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Vanguard's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011012.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011012.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Winsome's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011014.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011014.html
      • Advanced received the NAL on March 5, 2001, we have not received a response or payment. Having received nothing that would undermine the factual findings described in the NAL, we conclude that the violations as described occurred and that the proposed forfeiture should issue. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), Advanced Telecom. Network, Inc. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($46,700) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011103.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011103.html
      • support its claim of inability to pay, KYOO has submitted federal income tax returns for 1997 through 1999. In light of the evidence submitted, for which KYOO requested confidential treatment, we lower KYOO's proposed monetary forfeiture from $22,000 to $12,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, KYOO Communications, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for the willful violation of Sections 11.35(b), 17.50, 73.1350(c)(1) and 73.1800(a) of the Rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01111.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01111.html
      • inadvertent. Capstar accepted the CD with the multiple versions of ``The Real Slim Shady'' and did not take sufficient care to ensure that the unedited version would not be played. We thus believe that the airing of the unedited version of the song, however unintentional, was still willful. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011166.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011166.html
      • license application or request for program test authority or STA must be granted or Allen must terminate all unauthorized operation of Station KMCA immediately. Otherwise, Allen risks loss of the license for Station KMCA as well as additional forfeiture penalties. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, M.C. Allen Productions is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for: violating Section 301 of the Act and sections 73.1615 and 73. 1620 of the Commission's rules regarding a licensee's operation during modification of facilities and a permittee's commencement of program tests; and for violating
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011175.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011175.html
      • be reduced because it has no history of prior violations. After considering NetCom's history of compliance with the Commission's rules, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture from $13,000 to $10,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, NetCom Technologies, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand five hundred dollars ($10,500) for failing to register its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules and for failing to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011192.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011192.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Kaminski's apparent violation of section 73.1015 warrants the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. In assessing a forfeiture, section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011194.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011194.html
      • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we impose a forfeiture of $16,800 on WLDI, Inc. (``WLDI''), licensee of Station WCOM(FM), Bayamon, Puerto Rico, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. This action is taken pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). BACKGROUND On October 1, 1999, Chancellor Media Corporation, owner of WLDI, filed with the Commission an application to transfer control of WLDI to the Spanish Broadcasting System of Puerto Rico (``SBS''). WCOM(FM) broadcast the allegedly indecent material that is the subject of this order on October 18, 19 and 20, 1999. Just over one week later, on October 29, 1999,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011212.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011212.html
      • see no basis for finding otherwise in this case. In addition, although The KBOO Foundation has submitted a petition signed by listeners who support the ``Soundbox,'' we have previously ruled that neither the statute nor our case law permits a broadcaster to air indecent material merely because it is popular. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011263.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011263.html
      • On March 23, 2001, the Commission's Seattle, Washington, Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) to Brockway. Brockway has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Brockway IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.html
      • of the Bureau's March 9, 2001 letter detailing the violations - does not defend substantively any specific instances of apparent violations, thereby indicating that the specific details provided in the Bureau letter were not needed by SBC to respond effectively to the NAL. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rule requiring ILECs promptly to post notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.html
      • the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Considering all of the circumstances described above, we find SBC apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $94,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's collocation rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011334.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011334.html
      • and repeated. Citadel does not dispute that the song was played repeatedly throughout the spring and summer months of 2000. Although Citadel contends that it attempted to render the song suitable for broadcast through editing, we believe that the licensee failed to purge a number of indecent references. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the general action in question, without
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011357.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011357.html
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, WWC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 101.31 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011364.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011364.html
      • us to evaluate the licensee's current financial condition, therefore, we cannot assess its ability to pay the forfeiture amount. Consequently, we must deny its request for rescission or reduction of the forfeiture based on its purported inability to pay. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, KASA Radio of Hogar, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for violating Sections 73.54(d), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1590(a)(6), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01137.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01137.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to AA Beep. AA Beep has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, AA Beep IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 301 of the Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011466.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011466.html
      • asserts, however, that the basis for his Petition is the Smiths' ``desperate'' financial situation, which compels them to seek remission of the forfeiture. In support of his argument of financial hardship, Mr. Smith includes various financial documents. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011489.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011489.html
      • forfeiture order should be issued against Mr. Brewer, and that it should be for the maximum amount. The record evidence clearly shows that Mr. Brewer engaged in unlicensed operations of both an FM broadcast facility and an unlicensed STL on March 11, 2000, in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Sections 503(b) of the Act and 1.80 of the Commission's rules state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that he was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011580.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011580.html
      • Enforcement Bureau's San Francisco Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars to Mr. Nakamura. Mr. Nakamura has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a Marvin Eugene Barnes IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed amateur radio station. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011581.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011581.html
      • Director of the Enforcement Bureau's Atlanta Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty-four thousand dollars to Zachery. Zachery has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Zachery Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,000 for violating sections 11.35(a), 17.4(a), 17.48, 17.49, 17.50, 17.56, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Rules in its operation of WDWZ(AM). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within 30
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011584.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011584.html
      • contractor to provide twenty-four hour monitoring services for its tower. USA Tower maintains that it has acted in good faith in all respects regarding the incident that underlies the NAL, and thus, the forfeiture should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining USA Tower's response, and supplement thereto, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011585.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011585.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to Mitchell. Mitchell has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mitchell Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willful violation of Section 17.4 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011587.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011587.html
      • basis for reconsidering the Forfeiture Order. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Alan-Leonard Brockway's petition for reconsideration of the May 23, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 3. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01165.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01165.html
      • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Verizon operated without a valid license for over one year after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011746.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011746.html
      • (``NAL'') in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to HCTV. HCTV has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Ho'ona'auao Community TV, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011747.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011747.html
      • (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to NEPC. NEPC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Northeast Passage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willful violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011752.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011752.html
      • record, we conclude that the law in this area was not clear enough to justify the imposition of a forfeiture under the circumstances presented. We note that we need not address here the continuing applicability of the section 214 condition at issue in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the NAL issued to Telmex International Ventures USA, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to counsel for Telmex International Ventures USA, Inc., Gary M. Epstein, Esq., Latham & Watkins, 555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004. FEDERAL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011776.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011776.html
      • 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2000, and the Wyandot was navigated on September 20, 22, and 24, 2000. 8. In its response to the NAL issued March 27, 2001, Shepler's requests remission of the monetary forfeiture. III. Discussion 9. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 506(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commissions Rules, requires that the Commission, in examining Shepler's's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011832.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011832.html
      • a forfeiture proceeding is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking reinstatement of a cancelled license. If Falcon wishes to seek reinstatement of the license, it should file a request for reinstatement with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Falcon Radio, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for unauthorized operation of a radio station in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) issued to Falcon Radio, Inc., NAL/Acct. No.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01184.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01184.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the September 1, 2000, Memorandum Opinion and Order IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011858.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011858.html
      • amateur station until September 1, 2003. He has not operated his amateur radio station since turning in the license. In addition, Mr. Chan has submitted financial data demonstrating that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Accordingly, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $7,500 forfeiture is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) proposed in the March 10, 1999 NAL issued to Kornwell Chan IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Kornwell Chan, 1919 Audubon Drive, Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011867.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011867.html
      • the Act and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Califormula's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other aspects. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Califormula's motion for stay of the Forfeiture Order is dismissed as moot. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01187.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01187.html
      • have the apparatus or the technical ability to determine whether the devices he markets are compliant and contends that he should be able to rely on Skywave's representation that its devices are compliant. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the Atlanta Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Morrison's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011920.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011920.html
      • WBOT that are separate and distinct from the violations in this case. Consequently, Radio One does not have an overall history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, and a reduction of the forfeiture on this basis is not warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Radio One Licenses, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-one thousand five hundred dollars ($21,500) for violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(e), 73.1350(c)(1), 73.1800(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 14. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011929.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011929.html
      • and enter the site. Hancock also indicates that both violations have been corrected. Finally, Hancock seeks reduction of the forfeiture amount, arguing that payment of the forfeiture would result in a financial hardship for the station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Hancock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012036.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012036.html
      • structures told the agents that he had been aware of one of the lighting outages and had reported it to the FAA but had not been aware of the other outage. III. Discussion 4. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mega's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012042.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012042.html
      • or reduction of the forfeiture based on its purported inability to pay. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. shall pay the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132940002'' and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012053.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012053.html
      • claims that there was a sign on the fence with space for the ASR number, but the number had been printed incorrectly and InfoAge was waiting for a replacement number at the time of the inspection. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining InfoAge's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012177.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012177.html
      • and were awaiting installation at the time of the inspection. Finally, Rego has submitted the first page of its federal tax return for 2000, presumably to demonstrate that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Rego's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012225.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012225.html
      • future. Broadwing also asks that the Commission take into account its past record of compliance with respect to the 197 towers it owned, asserting that the Commission has never assessed a forfeiture against Broadwing in connection with its operation of these towers. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Broadwing's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012280.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012280.pdf
      • Thus, SpectraSite is responsible for the acts and omissions of its monitoring service. Finally, although SpectraSite took expedient measures to correct the violation, its remedial actions, while commendable, are not a mitigating factor.7 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,9 SpectraSite Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise on April 5, 2001. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012412.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012412.pdf
      • Field Office issued a $25,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Willis.2 Willis did not file a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Willis Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violating Sections 1.89(b), 11.35(a), 17.4(a)(2), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012517.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012517.pdf
      • reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order is not warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 Star's petition for reconsideration of the April 11, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules9 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012549.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012549.pdf
      • act or failure to act.17 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 9. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information.19 The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase to this base amount pursuant to upward adjustment criteria contained in the rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. Specifically, three factors warrant the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012560.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012560.pdf
      • urge Commission licensees to consider their operational environment in complying with Section 90.403(e) of the Rules. In some circumstances, licensees may find it prudent to install more selective monitoring equipment to ensure that harmful interference to shared frequencies is avoided. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,4 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the captioned NAL issued to Statcom IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Statcom Communications Corp., 1324 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York 1 0302, and to its counsel, Pamela Gaary, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, Chartered, 1111 19th Street,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01257.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01257.html
      • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Verizon operated without a valid license for over six months after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012582.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012582.pdf
      • ceased, the issuance of a forfeiture in this case suggests that carriers must choose between seriously prejudicing the public by shutting down facilities that are not causing any harm, or risk being subjected to a forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining WWC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012591.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012591.pdf
      • the staff. Here, there are more violations, but disclosure was voluntary. On balance, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture in the total amount of $20,000 is appropriate for the eight apparent violations involved here. IV. Ordering Clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, Northeast Utilities IS APPARENTLY LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000, for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.17. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within 30-days of the release of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Northeast Utilities SHALL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012621.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012621.pdf
      • that he would discontinue operating the radio station equipment, and has disposed of his equipment. According to Mr. Kramer, the proposed forfeiture amount is unfair in light of the other CB radio operators in the area. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Mr. Kramer's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012773.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012773.pdf
      • has long held that remedial action to correct a violation, while commendable, will generally not nullify a forfeiture penalty. See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973). On balance, we find that a $10,000 forfeiture should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,27 and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,28 M.C. Allen Productions FORFEIT to the United States the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for: violating 47 U.S.C. 301 and 47 C.F.R. 73.1615 and 73.1620, regarding a licensee's operation during modification of facilities and a permittee's commencement of program tests; and for violating 47 C.F.R. 73.1125(e) by failing to maintain a local or toll-free number
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012794.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012794.pdf
      • requests that the Commission revise the NAL to reflect the station manager's complete duties and to reflect that all station operations, other than accounts receivable, were not under the direction or oversight of Wilks. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining BBI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012816.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012816.pdf
      • and the third party failed to notify it of the extinguished beacon. Eure asserts that the violation was not repeated because the FCC agent observed the violation on only one day, June 9, 2001. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Eure's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012831.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012831.pdf
      • Section 399B of the Act, and Sections 73.503 and 73.3527 of the Commission's rules, respectively, by broadcasting announcements promoting a for-profit entity and for failing to maintain the station's public file. In light of the station's otherwise unblemished prior enforcement record, however, we find that a monetary sanction is not warranted to redress this rule violation. See Note to Section 1.80 (b)(4) of the Commission's rules.7 Instead, we believe that an admonishment is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. IV. Ordering Clauses 17. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Isothermal Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational station WNCW(FM), Spindale, North Carolina, IS ADMONISHED for broadcasting advertisements in violation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012862.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012862.pdf
      • for NEPC to give its full attention to all of its correspondence, including the two NOVs and the NAL issued by the Philadelphia Office on October 20, 2000; December 7, 2000; and March 22, 2001, respectively. The information provided by NEPC adequately explains why it may have been difficult for NEPC to respond to Commission correspondence. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,4 we reduce the $7,000 forfeiture amount by the amount of the forfeiture assessed for NEPC's failure to respond to Commission correspondence ($4,000). 5. However, the fact remains that NEPC did fail to register its Forked River, New Jersey, antenna structure and it does not dispute the violation. Moreover, it has provided no basis upon which to reduce
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012903.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012903.pdf
      • NAL on August 7, 2001 accompanied by documentation regarding his ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. After reviewing Mr. Pettrey's response, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted based on Mr. Pettrey's inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the July 30, 2001 NAL issued to Jeffrey Alan Pettrey IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Jeffrey Alan Pettrey at 4014 West Main Street, Princeton, West Virginia
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012922.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012922.pdf
      • as to the development of EAS. Finally, MAPA appears to seek reduction of the forfeiture amount, on the basis that that payment of the forfeiture would result in a financial hardship for the station. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining MAPA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012937.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012937.pdf
      • and we deny HCTV's petition for reconsideration. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Ho'ona'auao Community TV, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012997.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012997.pdf
      • license. 2. On September 10, 2001, the Commission's Dallas, Texas, Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 to Merrell.2 Merrell has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Merrell IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 and of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01306.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01306.html
      • relocate. Given Rebus's financial situation, we believe that assessment of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship. Therefore, we conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture amount to $1,000 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Rebus, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by operating station WTAL(AM) without the required EAS equipment. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01311.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01311.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) to Netcom for the noted violations. Netcom has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Netcom Technologies, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) for failing to register its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules and for failing to exhibit medium intensity obstruction lighting on its Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico antenna structure in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01312.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01312.html
      • were on 161.19 MHz -- not on the frequency assigned to Union Pacific -- and were, thus, unauthorized. 11. We can find no basis for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture and, therefore, affirm the $10,000 forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01329.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01329.html
      • expiration date of the authorization for which renewal is sought ....''. The STA request was granted on October 6, 1999. On December 13, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the request for waiver of Section 1.949 and the late-filed renewal application. 3. On October 17, 2000, the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued a Notice of Apparent Liability in the amount of $5,000 to Econopage for operating paging station KNKJ435 without authorization. 4. On November 15, 2000, Econopage filed a response with the Commission in which it requests reduction of the forfeiture amount. Econopage asserts that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because it did submit its renewal application
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01330.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01330.html
      • and his birth certificate. Although he did not timely file his second set of documents, our review of the documents revealed nothing responsive to the facts alleged in the NAL. Additionally, nothing in the documents persuades us to reduce the $10,000 forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Mr. Rowland IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01338.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01338.html
      • a.m. and 10 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on or about October 18, 19, and 20, 1999, WLDI, Inc., violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming on Station WCOM(FM). Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01342.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01342.html
      • Isotropically Radiated Power (``EIRP'') is 63.4 dBm. Converting the radio station's EIRP of 63.4 dBm to an equivalent ERP results in an ERP of 61.3 dBm, which is greater than the 55 dBm ERP limit set by Section 101.31(b)(1)(vii) of the Rules. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Califormula IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01344.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01344.html
      • FCC Rcd 4387 (1991)(definition of willfulness contained in 47 U.S.C. � 312(f) applies equally to 47 U.S.C. � 503). Furthermore, a continuing violation is ``repeated'' if it lasts more than one day. Id, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the violations warrant the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice my require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $8,000 for an unauthorized substantial transfer
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01368.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01368.html
      • the Act by a common carrier. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the antenna structure registration number. The Commission has determined that an appropriate base amount is $2,000 per violation. Application of that base amount to each of VoiceStream's violations would lead to a proposed forfeiture of $24,000. We find
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01370.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01370.html
      • statements indicate that it had gross revenues of $237,171.30 in 1997, $190,935.93 in 1998, and $231,332.82 in 1999. The proposed forfeiture amount of $5,000 is not excessive in the context of these revenues. Therefore, we affirm the forfeiture of $5,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Joe L. Ford, d/b/a Ford Communications, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01382.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01382.html
      • 1999, Checkpoint filed an application for renewal of the authorization for that station and requested a waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules. On April 3, 2000, the Commission granted Checkpoint's waiver request and reinstated its authority to operate Station WPCA811. On December 14, 2000, the Enforcement Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to Checkpoint for operating without a valid license. In its response to the NAL, Checkpoint argues that the one-year statute of limitations in Section 503(b)(6)(B) prohibits the Commission from imposing the proposed forfeiture. In support of its assertion, Checkpoint states that it received Special Temporary
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01392.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01392.html
      • assessed for AT&T's alleged operation of a PCS station without authorization from a site in Humacao, Puerto Rico. Based on AT&T's response, it is clear that AT&T did not engage in the operation at issue in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to AT&T IS RESCINDED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01403.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01403.html
      • runs from December 1999 (one year before the issuance of the NAL) to March 24, 2000, and that the unauthorized operation of the captioned stations during that period does not warrant a $6,000 forfeiture. II. Discussion 4. As the NAL explicitly states, TPSD assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Commercial Radio's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01456.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01456.html
      • for the base amount of $4,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that El Mundo's ``petition for reconsideration'' filed November 22, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent that we approve a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $6,000 to $4,000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, El Mundo Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of Stations WKAQ(AM), San Juan, PR, and WUKQ(AM), Ponce, PR, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00), for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01458.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01458.html
      • the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. However, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is the base amount for this violation. Therefore, we are reducing the forfeiture amount to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) on our own motion. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Dr. John G. Pierre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01459.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01459.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to Ohio Bell. Ohio Bell has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01502.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01502.html
      • WCVP. During our review of FCC records, we found that Cherokee Broadcasting had a history of overall compliance with the Rules. Consequently, in this case, we will reduce the $8,000 forfeiture to $6,500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Cherokee Broadcasting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,500 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requiring it to have operating EAS equipment in place. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01504.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01504.html
      • states that, following the second false ELT activation, it installed a new ELT. In addition, Oahu Aviation apologized for the false activations and promised to take ``every precaution to prevent any further disruption.'' III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the Honolulu Office assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') requires that, in examining Oahu Aviation's response, the Commission take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01526.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01526.html
      • it can provide the necessary information on the tower registration form. Radford also requests that we take into account its financial status and provides tax returns for 1997, 1998 and 1999. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Radford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01537.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01537.html
      • 2, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we impose a forfeiture of $7,000 on Infinity Radio License, Inc. (``Infinity''), licensee of Station WLLD(FM), Holmes Beach, Florida, for a willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. This action is taken pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. By Notice of Apparent Liability, DA 00-2724, released December 5, 2000 (``NAL''), we determined that certain material apparently broadcast over WLLD(FM) on September 11, 1999, was indecent. After considering the context, we opined that the language from two discrete excerpts from the live rap and hip hop concert, ``The Last Damn Show,'' contained patently offensive references to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01540.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01540.html
      • which supported the downward adjustments made to the proposed forfeitures. In both instances, the carriers submitted plans to eliminate their universal service debts to USAC and commenced paying down their arrearages prior to issuance of their respective Notices of Apparent Liability. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), North American Telephone Network, LLC is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01542.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01542.html
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Advanced continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Advanced's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Advanced Telecom. Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($46,700) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Advanced Telecom.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01582.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01582.html
      • necessary to foster compliance or serve as a deterrent.'' Contrary to TeleCorp's assertion, it has not demonstrated any good faith compliance with the lighting rules. Additionally, although it has apparently rectified its outstanding violations, we note that its corrective action will not excuse its past violations. After reviewing Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, section 1.80 of the Rules, the facts, and TeleCorp's response to the NAL, we believe that the $80,000 forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, TeleCorp IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $80,000 for willfully
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01596.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01596.html
      • the day after its prior permit expired, and December 12, 2000, when it received an STA. Telemundo's apparent violation of Section 325(c) of the Act during this period is aggravated by its history of noncompliance with Section 325(c) between 1993 and 1995. Under these circumstances, we conclude that a monetary forfeiture appears warranted. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, which provides further guidance in establishing appropriate forfeiture amounts, does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01661.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01661.html
      • - TV6 transferred control of K06MU to Bear Valley Broadcasting, Inc. prior to having received Commission authorization to do so. Having received nothing to suggest otherwise, we conclude that the unauthorized transfer occurred and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that K.I.D.S. - TV6 FORFEIT to the United States the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 310(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3540(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01671.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01671.html
      • entitled to leniency because it cannot afford to pay a forfeiture. If we deem a forfeiture appropriate on the basis of facts unrelated to Skywave's financial circumstance, Skywave asserts, the Bureau should consider reducing the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)(``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01672.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01672.html
      • Act and Section 22.3 of the Rules. We, therefore, can find no basis for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture and affirm the Forfeiture Order. Consistent with a prior statement by the Commission, our forfeiture relates to the period before AA Beep filed its renewal application. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01680.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01680.html
      • in paragraph five above do not serve to reduce the proposed forfeiture in the NAL. In the each of the months at issue, SBC violated the Business Rules in other material respects, and the $8000 proposed forfeiture for each of those months will stand. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01682.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01682.html
      • a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with at least one other case involving a similar transgression. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, PCS Partners, L.P. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that within thirty days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01701.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01701.html
      • of the Rules requires SpectraSite to immediately notify the Commission of any change in tower ownership. Compliance with this rule obviates the need to send copies of violation notices to any entity other than the tower owner of record. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, SpectraSite Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for violating Sections 17.57 and 17.4(g) of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of changes in tower ownership, failing to post ASR numbers, and in one instance, failing to post the correct ASR number. 6. Payment of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01708.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01708.html
      • have records to support its assertions that its employees posted the ASR numbers in conformance with the Commission's Rules and its corporate compliance plan. 10. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that no further reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. In conclusion, after reviewing Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 (``Act''), as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, the facts, and AT&T Wireless' opposition to the NAL, we believe that a $14,000 forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, AT&T Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01714.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01714.html
      • Station KPS323 did not cause interference or otherwise negatively affect the provision of any other telecommunications service; and (4) Page-Comm has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Page-Comm's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01720.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01720.html
      • result reached in the Forfeiture Order. Therefore, we will deny its petition for reconsideration. III. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01721.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01721.html
      • pay. After reviewing T & W Communications's financial documentation, we find that the $6,500 proposed forfeiture is reasonable given its gross receipts or sales of $510,816 (1997), $406,814 (1998), $511,304 (1999), and $370,928 (through September of 2000). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, T & W Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,500 for violating Sections 17.4(a)(2) and 73.49 of the Rules requiring it to register its antenna structure and to enclose that antenna structure with an effective locked fence. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01784.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01784.html
      • Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) to Christian Broadcasting for the noted violations. Christian Broadcasting has not filed a response. Therefore, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Christian Broadcasting Corporation, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for failing to respond to Commission correspondence in willful violation of Section 1.89(b) of the Rules, and for failing to register the antenna structure of radio station WBOK in willful violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Payment of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01792.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01792.html
      • were bleeped and arguably would not have been understandable to all viewers. Moreover, although some of the segments may have been short, this is not a case where there is a fleeting or passing sexual reference. Rather, this episode contains a series of segments with ongoing unmistakable sexual references. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01811.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01811.html
      • exigent matters has prevented my response until now.'' We conclude that American has not provided evidence of ``unavoidable circumstances'' that would explain its 17 month delay in responding to the NOV. We also reject American's argument that the Commission ``lacks the moral authority'' to impose forfeitures on its regulatees who violate the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules clearly authorize the Commission to assess forfeiture penalties on regulatees who violate the Act or the Rules. American's assertions concerning the Commission's ``moral authority'' provide no basis for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. Accordingly, we deny its petition for reconsideration. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01812.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01812.html
      • broadcast of indecent material apparently had no impact on the airing of the cited material, and its current procedures for editing ``Kramer and Twitch'' and advising audiences about its content have no bearing on whether a forfeiture should be imposed. See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973). 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. As explained
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01823.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01823.html
      • of control.'' As detailed in the NAL, Citicasters assumed control of WBTJ(FM) without having received Commission authorization to do so. Having received nothing to suggest otherwise, we conclude that the unauthorized transfer occurred and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. Ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Citicasters Co. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 310(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3540(a). Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01824.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01824.html
      • to Voice Stream for violation of Section 17.4(g) of the Rules. In its responses to the NOVs, VoiceStream indicated that it had corrected the violations by posting the antenna structures' ASR numbers. III. Discussion 4. As the NAL explicitly states, the Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining VoiceStream's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01870.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01870.html
      • crudely relayed her fondness for oral sex. See Regent Licensee of Flagstaff, Inc. (KZGL(FM)), 15 FCC Rcd 17286 (Enforcement Bureau 2000). We have consistently deemed such material indecent, and we believe the same result is warranted here. See also Rusk Corporation (KLOL(FM)), 5 FCC Rcd 6332 (Mass Media Bureau 1990). 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's rules. In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01899.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01899.html
      • 1998, to: ``License Renewal Division, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.'' Star asserts that the FCC did not respond to inquiries about the application's status. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Star's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01909.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01909.html
      • to his family. Mr. LaPierre's combined gross income and gross sales amounted to $178,947 in 1999 and $179,048 in 1998. After reviewing his financial documentation, we find that the $4,000 forfeiture is reasonable given his gross income and gross sales. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01966.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01966.html
      • grant of its renewal application. Now that it faces a monetary forfeiture for unauthorized operation, AA Beep disavows this assertion. However, AA Beep provides no explanation for its change in position. We have reviewed this matter thoroughly and find no basis for rescinding the Forfeiture Order. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01967.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01967.html
      • an unlicensed frequency, and claims that such operation was caused by a malfunctioning transmitter. We have considered Callcomm's arguments and reviewed the record, and we conclude that the record is insufficient to support a finding that Callcomm operated an unlicensed radio station. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), the monetary forfeiture issued against Callcomm IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Callcomm's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other aspects. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01974.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01974.html
      • for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of thirteen thousand five hundred dollars ($13,500) to Mr. Smith for the noted violations. Mr. Smith has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jerry Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,500) for operating a CB Radio Station with a non-type-accepted transmitter, with a transmitter output power greater than four watts carrier power in the AM (A3) mode, and with an external RF power amplifier, in willful and repeated violation of Sections 95.409(a),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01991.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01991.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Allpage's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01992.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01992.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that American Metrocomm's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01993.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01993.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that ATX's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01994.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01994.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that CDS's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01995.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01995.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Chickasaw's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01996.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01996.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Core's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01997.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01997.html
      • that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Digital Teleport's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01998.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01998.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Fulltel's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01999.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01999.html
      • held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if the violator knew it was taking the action in question, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Based upon the record before us, it appears that IDS's failure to comply with the reporting requirements was willful. In assessing a forfeiture, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules require us to consider the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. The Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines establish a base amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb00tc177.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb00tc177.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc012.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc012.pdf
      • the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and . . . shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d), (e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc012.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc015.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc015.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc016.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc016.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc019.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc019.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 (b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc020.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc020.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc021b.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc021b.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc023.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc023.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc024.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc027b.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc027b.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc028.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc028.html
      • of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that for common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $120,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). Please be advised that for non-common carriers, subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc051.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc051.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc065.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc065.pdf
      • the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and . . . shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d), (e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/eb01tc065.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01009.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01009.html
      • 503 of the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for ATC's lighting violation. The base forfeiture amount is $3,000 for each of ATC's 26 instances of failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration (two violations) and failure to notify the Commission of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01018.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01018.html
      • 320, was filed on October 28, 1998, for tests performed on August 10, 1998. A test should have been performed before August 10, 1999, and should have been reported to us on or before December 31, 1999. Conclusion The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') as implemented in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. A forfeiture may be assessed against a person who the Commission finds to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules. ``Willful'' in this context means that the person knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of intent to violate the provision. ``Repeated'' means
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01044.html
      • C.F.R. � 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof shall be on the Enforcement Bureau as to all of the foregoing issues. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to Section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(3)(A), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, whether an Order of Forfeiture in an amount not to exceed two hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($275,000) shall be issued against Family Broadcasting, Inc. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating Sections 1.89, 11.35, 73.49, 73.1015, 73.1350(a), 73.1560(a), 73.1560(b), 73.1690(b)(2) and/or 73.3526 of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in connection with the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01048.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01048.html
      • As we stated in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, forfeitures should not be simply an affordable cost of doing business. We continue to believe that a forfeiture in the amount of $113,000 is appropriate based on all the facts and circumstances of this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Matrix IS LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 254 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 254, and Section 54.706 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01087.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01087.html
      • amount of $40,000 for each of 17 apparent violations. ATNC's apparent intentional and repeated misconduct represents a gross dereliction of its verification obligations; accordingly, we propose increasing the forfeiture by 50%, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $1,020,000. 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that America's Tele-Network Corp IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,020,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.html
      • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01106.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01106.html
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If PTT continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke PTT's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, PTT Telekom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($137,000) for violating the Act and our rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within thirty days of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, PTT Telekom, Inc. SHALL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01113.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01113.html
      • and ANI have apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders as identified above. We have further determined NOS Communications, Inc. and Affinity Network Incorporated are apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $500,000 each. 21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that NOS Communications, Inc. and Affinity Network Incorporated ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $500,000 each, for willful or repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01124.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01124.html
      • 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Vista Services Corporation, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), Vista's Motion for Stay filed on November 22, 2000, IS DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December to August, 1999 governing interexchange carrier conversions. FEDERAL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01128.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01128.html
      • basis for reconsidering the AT&T NAL, except with regard to the Krumweide and Agnew complaints as discussed above. Further, AT&T has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty for the remaining 11 violations. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that AT&T Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of five hundred twenty thousand dollars ($520,000) for violating Sections 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01154.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01154.html
      • reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.� 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Coleman Enterprises, Inc. IS DENIED. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Coleman Enterprises Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from June, 1998 through May, 1999 governing interexchange carrier conversions.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01184.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01184.html
      • ORDERING CLAUSES For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 503 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503, the Application for Review filed by SBC Communications IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80, SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01187.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01187.html
      • on April 9, 2001, we have not received a response or payment of the proposed forfeiture. Having received nothing that would undermine the factual findings described in the NAL, we conclude that the violations as described occurred and that the proposed forfeiture should issue. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), PTT Telekom, Inc. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($137,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. � 254(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 within thirty days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01197.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01197.html
      • 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part the January 31, 2001 application for review filed by Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("Arnold"), licensee of Station KNEC-FM, of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the Enforcement Bureau ("EB") found Arnold liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $14,000 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 11.35 (failure to install and maintain operable Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment), 73.1350 (failure to have a transmitter control system in place which would allow the transmitter to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01215.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01215.html
      • missed certain statutory deadlines. Nevertheless, the argument that this affects the Commission's authority to impose a forfeiture is frivolous and the Bureau properly rejected it. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc.'s application for review IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01222.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01222.html
      • 2001 Released: August 10, 2001 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we dismiss the May 24, 2001 application for review filed by Page-A-Phone, Inc. ("Page-A-Phone"), licensee of Stations WRV927 and WXR916, of the Forfeiture Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the Enforcement Bureau found Page-A-Phone liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,500 for willful violation of Section 1.949 of the Rules by failing to file license renewal applications for paging Stations WRV927 and WXR916 prior to the expiration of the authorizations for the stations. 2. The Forfeiture Order issued in this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01242.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01242.html
      • operate the relevant translator stations at any time in the future absent further Commission or court action giving it authority to do so. Such affidavit shall be filed no later than 10 days from the release of this order. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Peninsula Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) for violating Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301, by operating the seven captioned translator stations subsequent to midnight May 19, 2001. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01254.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01254.html
      • stated above, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Limited Reconsideration filed by AT&T Communications, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that AT&T Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of five hundred and twenty thousand ($520,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order On Reconsideration shall be sent by certified United States mail to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.html
      • in light of its $2,000 net operating loss for 1997. The record must contain more than such unsupported statements in order for the Commission to evaluate the effect of financial indicators such as a carrier's gross revenues or net losses. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that All American Telephone Company, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of nine hundred twenty thousand dollars ($920,000) for violating Section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred interexchange carrier conversions. Payment shall be made in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01301.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01301.pdf
      • US Notary has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that that there is any basis for reducing or rescinding the forfeiture proposed in the US Notary NAL. We therefore impose a $90,000 forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F. R. 1.80, that US Notary, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $90,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 14. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01308.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01308.pdf
      • or failure to act.68 In determining the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''69 56. Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $3,000 for violations of section 1.65.70 The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase in this base amount under certain upward adjustment criteria contained in the Rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement: the egregiousness of the misconduct and SBC's ability to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01326.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01326.pdf
      • its ruling was correct and that no basis exists to warrant reversal. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules,6 AA Beep's application for review of the MO&O released on April 19, 2001, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the five thousand dollar ($5,000) monetary forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01365.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01365.pdf
      • we find that ATNC has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the ATNC NAL. Further, ATNC has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that ATNC Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,020,000 for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions.49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture shall be sent by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-03A1.html
      • while commendable, are not a mitigating factor.5 However, after considering Palouse's overall history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture from $10,000 to $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 Palouse Country, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violating Sections 73.1400(a)(1)(ii), 73.1560(a), 73.1580, and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1073A1.html
      • to file an NRUF report for one OCN, which was referenced in our NAL. We have not received a response from Allpage to suggest otherwise. Thus, we conclude that Allpage willfully violated section 52.15(f) and that imposition of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Allpage FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1078A1.html
      • the Commission's adoption of the reporting requirements for number utilization and forecast data and the effective date of Section 52.15(f). We therefore conclude that Litelco is not subject to the reporting requirements of section 52.15(f) and that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate.5 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against Litelco Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Richard Steiner, Litelco Communications, Inc., 23 Ostend Road, Island Park, NY 11558. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 See Litelco Communications, Inc.,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1086A1.html
      • its response, Friendship does not dispute the violations. Rather, Friendship states that it has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and, consequently, requests a waiver of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Friendship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1091A1.html
      • Commission's inspection. Tidewater also submits that there is no probative and acceptable evidence that the violation was repeated apart from the one day that the Navy pilot and the Norfolk Office Resident Agent observed the antenna structure on November, 6, 2001. Finally, Tidewater maintains that imposition of the base amount forfeiture of $10,000 for this type of violation under Section 1.80(b)(4)5 is too high and claims that the Norfolk Office did not consider its good faith or voluntary disclosure, and its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1127A1.html
      • the Forfeiture Order.5 3. As indicated in the petition for reconsideration, certain information set forth in the NAL does not pertain to Lightning. After reviewing the entire record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. See Section 503(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) of the Act.6 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act,7 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 the captioned NAL issued to Lightning IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Lightning's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and IS DENIED in all other respects. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1141A1.html
      • the Commission's Miami, Florida, Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $17,000 to CTI for the noted violations.3 CTI has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 CTI IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act and repeatedly and willfully violating Section 302a (b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1181A1.html
      • to PREPA for a forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the noted violation.2 PREPA has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1295A1.html
      • further reduction. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),9 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,10 MAPA's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby DENIED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act11 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,12 MAPA Broadcasting, L.L.C. shall pay the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132620005,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1298A1.html
      • York Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $10,000 to Rev. Dr. Nicholas. Rev. Dr. Nicholas has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"),4 Rev. Dr. Philius Nicholas IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1307A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Brothers for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the noted violation.2 Brothers has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Thomas A. Brothers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1314A1.html
      • radio station. 2. On January 10, 2002, the District Director of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Office issued the NAL to Networx. Networx filed a response on February 11, 2002. After considering Networx's response and reviewing the record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled.3 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act4 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 the NAL issued to Networx Corporation IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Networx Corporation, 1 Fishers Road, Pittsford, New York 14534, and to its counsel, Timothy K. Brady, Esquire, P.O. Box 71309, Newnan, Georgia 30271.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1336A1.html
      • imposed without an evidentiary hearing cannot be used to the prejudice of that entity unless a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final order after a trial de novo requiring payment of the forfeiture. See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles (KROQ-FM), supra, 16 FCC Rcd at 6869. 18. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1347A1.html
      • provisions, the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines.5 Because CDS ceased operating as a competitive local exchange carrier, we conclude that CDS was not subject to the reporting requirements of section 52.15(f) in September 2000 and that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate.6 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b), and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against CDS Networks, Inc. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to John C. Tooker, President, CDS Networks, Inc., P.O. Box 1165, Medford, Oregon 97501. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 See CDS Networks, Inc., 16
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1348A1.html
      • amount.16 We have reviewed Chickasaw's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and conclude that Chickasaw has not justified cancellation of the proposed forfeiture but that its overall record justifies a reduction of the forfeiture from $6,000 to $4,800. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Chickasaw Telephone Co. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1349A1.html
      • have reviewed Digital Teleport's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and conclude that Digital Teleport has not justified cancellation of the proposed forfeiture but that its overall record justifies a reduction of the forfeiture from $6,000 to $4,800. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Digital Teleport, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1350A1.html
      • requirements is considered a willful violation.8 Moreover, FullTel's pledge of future compliance does not justify reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture penalty.9 We have reviewed Fulltel's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that FullTel, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1351A1.html
      • therefore conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted.10 We have reviewed IDS's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that IDS has justified a reduction of the proposed forfeiture penalty from $6,000 to $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that IDS Telcom, LLC FORFEIT to the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1352A1.html
      • intermediate carrier and thus was required to report only utilization data. We have reviewed R&G's response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that R&G has not justified reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Accordingly, we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that R&G Distribution FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1365A1.html
      • of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988). 6. In this case, we find that Results apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting Mr. Davison's conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules,5 each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1429A1.html
      • and that payment of the forfeiture would result in a serious financial hardship for the station. In support of this argument, TV 45 provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining TV 45's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1484A1.html
      • the Commission's Miami, Florida Resident Agent Office issued a $10,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Leger for the noted violation.2 Leger has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 James Leger IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license in willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1502A1.html
      • find that the material broadcast on WKQX(FM), in context, is patently offensive.13 Emmis does not dispute that the complained of material was broadcast when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. By broadcasting this material, WKQX(FM) apparently violated the prohibitions against broadcast indecency. 10. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1571A1.html
      • Policy Statement14 does not explicitly identify a base forfeiture amount for violations of section 73.1207(b) of the rules. However, considering all the facts and circumstances and Commission precedent, we find that a forfeiture of $1,000.00 is apparently warranted.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 16 and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the rules,17 Concilio Mision Cristiana Fuente de Agua Viva, Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1207(b), which prohibits a broadcast station from rebroadcasting the program or any part thereof of another broadcast station, without obtaining the express, written authority of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1775A1.html
      • to the subject violations and elaborates on other information, some personal in nature, which it first presented in response to the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.3 After reviewing the particular circumstances presented in this case, in accord with the discretion provided to us by Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 (``Act'') and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that reduction of the $3,500 forfeiture to $500 is warranted in this case. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 C.W.H. Broadcasting, Inc.'s Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 4. Payment of the $500 forfeiture shall be made in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1834A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $5,000 to Mr. McCreary. Mr. McCreary has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mr. McCreary IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully violating Section 95.411 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1835A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $4,000 to WRHC. WRHC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 WRHC Broadcasting Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1836A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $2,000 to New Wave. New Wave has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 New Wave Broadcasting, L.P. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1837A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $7,000 to Mr. Bushman. Mr. Bushman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mr. Sam Bushman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1844A1.html
      • between the old tower and the current tower is ``very small in absolute terms.'' Finally, ACS argues that the proposed $1,000 forfeiture for failure to maintain records is ``duplicative'' and unwarranted, and that it has a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining ACS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1850A1.html
      • of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992). After reviewing the financial documentation submitted by M&R, we conclude that it is appropriate to reduce the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $5,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that M&R Enterprises, Inc. is LIABLE for a FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.3526. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1887A1.html
      • the questionable nature of the guest's material and could have used a time-delay device, does not relieve Rubber City of liability. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find that on November 29, 2001, WONE-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1921A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $21,000 to Fenix. Fenix has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Fenix Broadcasting Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully violating Sections 11.35(a), 17.51, and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1945A1.html
      • to the World Communications, Inc., supra (where $5,000 forfeiture was originally imposed for numerous noncompliant television underwriting announcements repeated over one-year period).25 This case is more serious, as it involves the broadcast of a larger number of advertisements on many occasions over a lengthy period of time. These factors warrant substantial compounding of the base forfeiture amount. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). However, we do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2001A1.html
      • Sycamore also argues that the forfeiture should not be imposed because ``we have corrected all the problems referenced and we have made every attempt to operate in compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Sycamore's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2017A2.html
      • conduct is considered by the Commission or its delegated authority in determining an appropriate sanction, Verizon will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of Verizon's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. 17. Verizon waives any and all rights it may have to seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal or stay, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Consent Decree and the Adopting Order, provided the Order adopts the Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification. 18. Verizon waives any rights it may have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2020A1.html
      • Commission authorization; that an application has been filed to assign the license for WLVA(AM);4 and that the towers at issue have been dismantled, correcting the violation. In neither response does Madison dispute the violations. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Madison's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-208A1.html
      • the average broadcast listener, we find that the material broadcast on KNDD(FM), in context, is patently offensive.13 This material appears to be actionably indecent because it was broadcast after 6 a.m. and within the period when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. 12. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2094A1.html
      • mitigating Family Life's claim, even if true, that its inability to afford to hire properly trained personnel contributed to its apparent rule violation. Noncommercial licensees are responsible for complying with Section 399B of the Act. See, e.g., Minority Television Project, Inc. (DA 02-1945), ___ FCC Rcd ___ (released August 9, 2002). Consequently, we believe a monetary sanction appears warranted. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specifies that the base amount for an underwriting rule violation is $2,000. In this case, we believe that no adjustment upward or downward is warranted and that the base forfeiture amount is appropriate. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). IV. Ordering Clauses 8. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a monetary sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, pursuant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2137A1.html
      • by the agent on April 27, 2000 that exceeded the threshold limit of 20 micro-volts, Charter was fulfilling its regulatory requirements with a monitoring and maintenance program that yielded a compliant CLI test result. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Charter's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-219A1.html
      • the SUNY case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,15 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,16 Radio One's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 14, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules17 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.18 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2205A1.html
      • notified of the violations after the January 9th inspection, the violations would have ceased then. Finally, Tarrant argues that the forfeiture should be reduced on the basis of the licensee's history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')2 Section 1.80 of the Rules,3 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Tarrant's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-230A1.html
      • 28, 2002, has not been completed. To the extent, if any, that Groveton seeks to rely on its efforts to correct this violation, we note that remedial action, although commendable, will not nullify a forfeiture penalty.4 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Groveton Broadcasting Group, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2336A1.html
      • and again in a meeting with the Audio Division on April 23, 2002, it offered to take KBKC off the air until the waiver request was processed, but was told that was not necessary. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AFA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2365A1.html
      • Alpine requests the Commission to consider that it took immediate corrective action once it became aware that the contract engineer in charge of the relocation project failed to timely install the EAS equipment. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Alpine's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-23A1.html
      • this factor. See id. at 20.11 12. Consequently, based on our review of Citadel's response in light of the applicable case law, we conclude that Citadel did not violate the statute or the Commission's indecency rule through its broadcast of the ``radio edit'' version of ``The Real Slim Shady.'' IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's June 1, 2001, NAL against Citadel Broadcasting Company, licensee of Station KKMG(FM), Pueblo, Colorado, is hereby RESCINDED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested to Kathleen A.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2400A1.html
      • by Infinity Radio License, Inc. IS DENIED. 6. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(a). 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2401A1.html
      • License Corporation's petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(a). 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2402A1.html
      • 1. In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a forfeiture of $12,000 on Entercom Seattle License, LLC (``Entercom''), licensee of Station KNDD(FM), Seattle, Washington, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, which prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at certain times of day. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received a complaint that KNDD(FM) broadcast indecent material on May 30, 2001 and on June 1, 2001. The complainant described the material broadcast, which, the complainant alleged, concerned whether a penis could be used to lift or pull objects. After reviewing the complaint, we issued a letter of inquiry to Entercom. Entercom submitted a response,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2473A1.html
      • and lighting. Concilio further requests that we give special consideration to its non-profit status, although it has not submitted any information suggesting that its financial situation would make payment of the forfeiture difficult. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Concilio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2474A1.html
      • deny the violations alleged in the NAL but contends that, in view of the cancellation of Lightning's forfeiture in the earlier proceeding, this forfeiture proceeding is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and ``law of the case.'' III. Discussion 9. The Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Act,11 Section 1.80 of the Rules,12 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act13 requires that, in examining Lightning's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2477A1.html
      • 16795, 16797 (EB 2001), citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970). 11. Sanction. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a sanction is appropriate. However, we do not believe a monetary sanction is necessary to redress the instant rule violations, and instead conclude that an admonishment is sufficient at this time. See Note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). IV. Ordering Clauses 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Calvary Bible College, licensee of noncommercial educational station KLJC(FM), Kansas City, Missouri, IS ADMONISHED for broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.503. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice shall be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2665A1.html
      • certain financial information. Faith Bible also states that following the inspection, it had the EAS equipment repaired and that it has instructed its Chief of Operations to keep the EAS logs up to date. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Faith Bible's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2691A1.html
      • this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") we grant in part and deny in part the Petition for Reconsideration1 filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC ("Radio One"), licensee of WBOT(FM),2 of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O")3 issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),4 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"),5 the Enforcement Bureau found Radio One liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $21,500 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 11.35(a) (failure to have operational Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment); 73.1125(e) (failure to establish a local or toll-free telephone number in the community of license); 73.1350(c)(1) (failure to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-26A1.html
      • January 8, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a forfeiture of $14,000 on Emmis FM License Corp. of Chicago (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received letters dated March 20, 2000, and May 15, 2000, complaining about material aired on Station WKQX(FM) on each of those dates during the ``Mancow Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program. The March complaint alleged that the station broadcast a conversation between 8:13 a.m. and 8:16 a.m., which the complainant deemed indecent. The May complaint alleged that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-272A1.html
      • although the complainant originated the call, the on-air personality could not reasonably have presumed that the complainant had the awareness required by the rule. Therefore, Entercom's recording of the conversation and subsequent broadcast thereof without sufficient notice violated Section 73.1206 of the rules.2 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard to any specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2793A1.html
      • to and scammed and that the station was a week away from dismantling when the FCC visited the station the second time. Finally, Mr. Muoz submits that neither he nor his church has the funds to pay the $10,000 forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Muoz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2824A1.html
      • the Commission's Denver, Colorado Field Office (``Denver Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $10,000. Mount Rushmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Mount Rushmore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2825A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $3,000. Mount Rushmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Mount Rushmore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1350 and 73.1400 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2856A1.html
      • District Director of the Commission's Kansas City, Missouri Field Office issued the NAL to USCC. USCC filed a response on July 5, 2002. After considering USCC's response and reviewing the record, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled.3 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the NAL issued to United States Cellular Corporation IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to United States Cellular Corporation, 8410 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Suite 700, Chicago, Illinois 60631, and to its counsel, Peter M. Connolly, Esquire,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2914A1.html
      • District Office issued a $17,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Cornbelt Broadcasting for the noted violations.2 Cornbelt Broadcasting has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Cornbelt Broadcasting Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(g), and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.5 If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-291A1.html
      • automatic alarm system will be reduced if VelociTel must pay the full forfeiture amount; and that investing in safety is a better use for ``scarce resources'' than payment of a forfeiture. III. Discussion 6. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act7 requires that, in examining VelociTel's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2937A1.html
      • 1. In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a forfeiture of $21,000 on Emmis Radio License Corporation (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, which prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at certain times of day. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission received complaints that WKQX(FM) broadcast indecent material on March 6, 2001, March 7, 2001 and May 17, 2001 between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. during the ``Mancow's Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program. The complainant submitted a tape of each of the Mancow programs containing the allegedly indecent material. After reviewing the complainant's tapes, we issued letters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3031A1.html
      • station personnel. In addition, Oberlin asserts that payment of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on it and submits financial information for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Oberlin's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3032A1.html
      • other day, and that locks were installed on the date of inspection and have been in place since that date. Therefore, Mitchell argues that there was no willful or repeated violation of Section 73.49. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mitchell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3070A1.html
      • applicable provisions of the Commission's rules. Under these circumstances, we find that complainant's telephone call falls within the ``call-in'' presumption of Section 73.1206, such that notice is not required in this case.3 We, therefore, conclude that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is appropriate. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the monetary forfeiture issued against Entercom New Orleans License, LLC IS HEREBY CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Entercom New Orleans License, LLC, c/o John C. Donlevie, Executive Vice President, Entercom New Orleans License, LLC, 401 City Avenue, Suite 409, Bala Cynwyd,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3105A1.html
      • FM radio station operating on that frequency was 70 miles away and thus it believed that that station was beyond the range of possible interference.18 Finally, California Speedway argues that it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's rules. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,19 Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.21 In examining California Speedway's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violation, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3129A1.html
      • the equipment has been installed and the EAS is working. Finally, Faith Mountain requests cancellation of the forfeiture because of its inability to pay, and provides certain financial information in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Faith Mountain's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3139A1.html
      • is ``financially struggling'' and requests reconsideration of the proposed forfeiture amount. In addition, Beacon states that it has discharged the former general manager, and that it is attempting to comply with all FCC rules. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Beacon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3174A1.html
      • its purported inability to pay that amount and provides as supporting documentation its tax returns for the most recent three-year period along with audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Bestov Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3218A1.html
      • limits. 17. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Americom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by exceeding the RFR MPE limits for the general public and failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing areas that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. 18. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')15 does not specify a maximum base forfeiture for violation of the RFR MPE limits described in Section 1.1310.16 However, the Commission recently determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules.17 19. In assessing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3239A1.html
      • contends that imposition of all or part of the forfeiture would cause a severe financial hardship. In support of this contention, Rev. Dr. Nicolas submits federal income tax returns for tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000. After reviewing the financial documentation presented, in accord with the discretion provided to us by Section 504(b) of the Act,4 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that reduction of the $10,000 forfeiture to $1,000 is warranted in this case. We have reviewed Rev. Dr. Nicolas's remaining arguments and conclude that they do not support further mitigation or cancellation of the forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 Rev.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3292A1.html
      • the $3,200 forfeiture proposed in the NAL for this violation. However, Truth argues that the $5,600 forfeiture proposed for failure to comply with AM fencing requirements should be substantially reduced, if not eliminated entirely. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Truth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3348A1.html
      • Office, a local police officer observed the WAAA tower at about 1:00 a.m. on October 17, 2002. The police officer reported to the Norfolk Office that the WAAA tower still had no obstruction lighting. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3349A1.html
      • watts. Additionally, McCreary stated that he would like to resolve the monetary forfeiture and offered to let the Commission take possession of his radio apparatus in lieu of payment of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The Enforcement Bureau assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act6 requires that, in examining McCreary's petition, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-336A1.html
      • factors exist beyond those already considered in the NAL for further reducing the amount of the forfeiture. Based on the totality of the information before us, we conclude that a forfeiture in the total amount of $5,500 is appropriate.10 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 47 U.S.C. 503(b) and Section 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, that Northeast Utilities IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. 1.17. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that payment of this forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in 47 C.F.R. 1.80 within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3390A1.html
      • for WIPC to Siber was consummated on April 30, 2002. Therefore, it appears that Seggi was no longer the owner of WIPC or the two antenna structures at the time the violations referenced in the NAL occurred. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the June 20, 2002 Notice of Apparent Liability issued to Seggi Broadcasting of Florida, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Seggi Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., 2000 Universal Studios, Suite 604, Orlando, Florida 32819. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3403A1.html
      • Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000.2 Manuel M. Vzquez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, (``Rules'')4 Manuel M. Vzquez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules 5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3404A1.html
      • City Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000.2 Deans Cablevision has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Deans Cablevision IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules 5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3405A1.html
      • Los Angeles, California Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')3 in the amount of $15,000. El Dorado has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 El Dorado IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for willfully violating Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.47(a), 17.48(a), 17.56, and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3407A1.html
      • on the information before us. Mr. Bushman filed a petition for reconsideration on September 3, 2002. 3. We have reviewed the additional facts set forth in Mr. Bushman's petition and conclude that, under principles of equity and fairness, rescission of the $7,000 forfeiture is warranted. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $7,000 forfeiture issued to Mr. Sam Bushman IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,4 Mr. Bushman's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to counsel for Mr. Sam Bushman, Barry D. Wood, Esq., Wood,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3448A1.html
      • of being the licensee of Station WJFD(FM). While this does not excuse a violation, this factor is mitigating when we determine an appropriate forfeiture amount. 15. Thus, we find that on four different dates Edmund Dinis apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3488A1.html
      • Mr. Sarmiento asserts that mitigation of the forfeiture is warranted because he has been forthcoming by having initiated written contact with the FCC, has applied for an LPFM license, and has demonstrated a respect for local, state and federal laws. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Sarmiento's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3555A1.html
      • the dates on these responses demonstrate the timeliness of the responses. Finally, BanJo notes that this is the first and only time it has been found to be in violation of the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining BanJo's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3556A1.html
      • violation. However, Alpha asserts that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture and submits tax returns for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and a balance sheet for 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Alpha's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3566A1.html
      • We noted in the Forfeiture Order that Mr. Brothers had not filed a response to the NAL, and affirmed the Forfeiture Order based on the information before us. On July 3, 2002, Mr. Brothers filed what he styled as a ``response'' to the NAL, which we are treating as a petition for reconsideration of our Forfeiture Order pursuant to Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). 4 3. In his petition for reconsideration, Mr. Brothers does not dispute that he willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. However, he asks that we cancel the $10,000 forfeiture because of, among other things, his inability to pay. The financial documentation that he provides demonstrates his inability to pay and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3591A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, City Page & Cellular Services, Inc. d/b/a/ City Beepers is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3592A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.13 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Gabriel Wireless LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3593A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.13 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Golden Arrow Paging, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3594A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.14 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, SelectPath Holding, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3595A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Telephone & Two-Way Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3596A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.15 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, UHF - DE, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3597A1.html
      • forms. We believe a forfeiture is appropriate in this case, and see no basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Thus, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000. This amount is consistent with other cases involving similar transgressions.16 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Wharton Telecom Holdings, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 1.2107(f) of the Commission's rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3601A1.html
      • Sections 1.89(b) and 11.35(a) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Patrick's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding IS hereby GRANTED to the extent noted herein. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(i) of the Rules,7 the forfeiture in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) issued to Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd. IS CANCELLED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Patrick IS ADMONISHED for its failure to respond to Commission correspondence and for its failure to install EAS equipment at Station KTRY-FM in willful violation of Sections 1.89(b) and 11.35(a) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-373A1.html
      • (``Miami Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Electronics Unlimited for the noted violations.3 Electronics Unlimited has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Electronics Unlimited, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for marketing a non-compliant high-power cordless telephone in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-383A1.html
      • the Commission's Miami, Florida, Resident Agent Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 to Lightning for the noted violations.3 Lightning has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Lightning IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-453A1.html
      • Bureau in this matter. Alternatively, NIE claims that it would be an extreme financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture proposed in light of its small profit margin over the last three years. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining NIE's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-574A1.html
      • a $4,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to National Cable for the noted violation.2 National Cable has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 National Cable IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-585A1.html
      • licensees are responsible for their agents' acts and omissions.4 Turning to WHNY(AM)'s claim of remedial action, we cite to another well-established FCC position: remedial action, although commendable, will not nullify a forfeiture penalty.5 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 C.W.H. Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,500 for willfully violating Sections 17.4(a)(2), 17.51(a), and 73.49 of the Rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.808 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-622A1.html
      • the rule includes any word or words spoken during the call. Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006 (1975). The licensee does not dispute that it did not give any notice to the complainant before WWDC-FM broadcast the complainant's voice mail greeting. Hence, we find apparent liability. 7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-677A1.html
      • that the complained of material was broadcast when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience. By broadcasting this material on three separate occasions - on March 6, 2001, March 7, 2001, and May 17, 2001- WKQX(FM) apparently violated the prohibitions against broadcast indecency. 15. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-717A1.html
      • that the violation was willful or repeated; that the violation was immediately corrected upon being brought to its attention; and that it has an overall history of compliance and showed good faith by voluntary disclosing information to the Enforcement Bureau. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 506(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KYS's response, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules requires that the Commission take into account certain downward adjustment criteria, including minor violation, good
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-722A1.html
      • of his Government of Puerto Rico income tax returns for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and documents indicating that he is unemployed. Rodriguez also argues that his violations are mitigated by his remedial action and his status as a first offender. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Rodriguez's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-729A1.html
      • of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463 (1988). 7. In this case, we find that Clear Channel apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting Mr. Shell's conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 8. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules,5 each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-730A1.html
      • find that it is irrelevant whether the individuals requested to view specific documents from the public inspection file or whether they simply asked to see the public inspection file. M&R's failure to provide access to its public inspection file upon request is a violation of the Commission's rules. 8. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-878A1.html
      • CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,11 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,12 Eure Family Limited Partnership's petition for reconsideration of the December 5, 2001, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $8,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.13 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-882A1.html
      • the monetary forfeiture for this violation. 9. In conclusion, after subtracting $3,000 for the Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules violation that we are dismissing in this Order, we find Willis Broadcasting liable for a $22,000 forfeiture. IV. Ordering Clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),16 and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules,17 Willis Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and IS DENIED in all other respects. 11. Payment of the $22,000 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules,18 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-912A1.html
      • is required or that New World violated the rule. New World does not dispute the EAS violation. Therefore, New World contends that the forfeiture amount attributable to the Section 73.1400 violation should be rescinded. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining New World's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-935A1.html
      • compliance with the Commission's rules.5 Florida Power contends that in this case, its tower was not dark. Rather, Florida Power states that the tower was lit so that aircraft could see it after sunset. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Florida Power's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-936A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) to Patrick for the noted violations.2 Patrick has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) for failing to respond to Commission correspondence, failing to install and operate EAS equipment, and failing to maintain a public inspection file in willful violation of Sections 1.89(b), 11.35(a), and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-937A1.html
      • and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''17 11. Excessive cable television signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies.18 Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')19 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for violations of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000 per violation. Application of the base amount to the captioned Charter subsidiaries' violations results in a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 for each. The total base forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-938A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''12 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')13 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form when there is a change in the antenna structure ownership information) is $3,000.15 The Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-968A1.html
      • on three separate occasions without Commission authorization, as described above. We have further determined that BroadStreet is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $5000 for each of the violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $15,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and authority delegated by section 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.311, that BroadStreet Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 214(a) of the Act20 and sections 63.61, 63.63, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-986A1.html
      • Commission's Detroit, Michigan Field Office issued a $17,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Central Transport for the noted violations.3 Central Transport has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Central Transport IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully violating Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.4(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-996A1.html
      • after 8:15 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, and thus is legally actionable. For these reasons, we find that on April 6, 2001, WAZX-AM and WAZX-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. 13. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240879A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240880A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240913A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240923A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240929A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240934A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240937A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240950A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240953A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240954A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240957A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240958A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240972A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240973A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240974A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240975A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-240976A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241002A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241003A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241004A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241007A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241011A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241012A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241013A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241014A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241017A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241020A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241021A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241023A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241024A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241026A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241034A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241035A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241040A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241042A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241043A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241044A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241045A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241046A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241047A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241048A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241050A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241053A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241054A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241056A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241059A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241060A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241064A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241065A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241066A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241067A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241068A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241069A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241070A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241071A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241072A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241073A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241074A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241102A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241110A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241111A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241113A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241114A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241115A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241116A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241117A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241118A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241144A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241146A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241147A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241150A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241151A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241152A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241161A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241162A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241163A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241166A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241167A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241168A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241169A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241170A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241171A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241172A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241173A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241174A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241175A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241176A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241177A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241178A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241179A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241180A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241181A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241182A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241183A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241184A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241185A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241186A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241187A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241188A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241205A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241230A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241316A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DOC-241319A1.html
      • Communications Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. You should be aware that such subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). Pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act, you may request a personal interview to discuss this citation at the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business. You should be prepared to address the steps your business is taking to ensure compliance with the federal prohibition on faxing unsolicited advertisements. You may contact Senetta Lancaster at slancaster@fcc.gov or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-01-TC-056.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-01-TC-056.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-034.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-034.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-034.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-036.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-036.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-048.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-048.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-048.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-061.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-061.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-062.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-062.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-062.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-064.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-064.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-064.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-065.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-065.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-065.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-069.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-069.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-070.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-070.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-070.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-072.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-072.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-073.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-073.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-118.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-118.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-122.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-122.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-122.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-127.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-127.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-127.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-129.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-129.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-131.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-131.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-131.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-132.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-132.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-132.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-133.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-133.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-133.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-134.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-134.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-134.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-137.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-137.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-137.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-139.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-139.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-139.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-254.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-254.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-254.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-255.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-255.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-255.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-256.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-256.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-256.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-257.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-257.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-257.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-258.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-258.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-258.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-259.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-259.pdf
      • Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 The Telecommunications Consumers Division has obtained information which indicates that Newgen Results Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of TeleTech Holdings, Inc. 2 47 U.S.C. 227; 47 C.F.R. 64.1200. 3 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e). 4 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 5 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-259.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-260.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-260.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-260.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-261.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-261.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-264.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-264.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-264.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-265.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-265.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-265.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-266.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-266.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-266.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-267.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-267.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-273.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-273.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/EB-02-TC-273.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-383A1.html
      • no basis for granting Brockway's application for review. See generally 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(5). 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules,6 Brockway's application for review of the MO&O released on July 6, 2001, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the seventeen thousand dollar ($17,000) monetary forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-112A1.html
      • act or failure to act.61 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''62 23. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information.63 As noted in the NAL, however, the circumstances of this case justify a substantial increase to this base amount pursuant to upward adjustment criteria contained in the rules and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.64 Specifically, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-124A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')19 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,20 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-125A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 17. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''),22 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,23 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000. The Forfeiture Policy Statement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-12A1.html
      • of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 200132080019/MG IS HEREBY DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Opposition to Citicasters' petition for reconsideration, filed September 6, 2001 by Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc., IS HEREBY DISMISSED, and Citicasters' reply to this opposition IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules9 within 30 days of the date of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-142A1.html
      • of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''59 23. Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular circumstances of this case, we find that AT&T Wireless is apparently liable for an aggregate forfeiture in the amount of $2.2 million for its apparent violations of Sections 1.65, 20.18(g)(1)(i) and 20.18(g)(2) of the Rules. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $3,000 for violations of Section 1.65.60 The circumstances of this case, however, appear to justify a substantial increase in the base amount for a Section 1.65 violation under the upward adjustment criteria contained in Section 1.80 and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.61 First, AT&T Wireless's conduct here
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-183A1.html
      • in the amount of $40,000 for each of 20 apparent violations. WebNet's apparent intentional and egregious misconduct represents a gross dereliction of its verification obligations; accordingly, we propose increasing the forfeiture by 50%, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $1,200,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that WebNet Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,200,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-213A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''13 14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')14 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,15 the base forfeiture amounts for the listed violations are: $4,000 for operation of a radio station at an unauthorized location;16 $10,000 for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements;17 $8,000 for failure to have EAS equipment installed and operational;18 $7,000 for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-226A1.html
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 489 unsolicited advertisements identified in Table 1 and discussed above. We have further determined that Fax.com is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $5,379,000. 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Fax.com, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $5,379,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. 29. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-258A1.html
      • that an $80,000 forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 64 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of $5,120,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, One Call Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,120,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), 64.703(a)(4). The amount
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-259A1.html
      • forfeiture is apparently warranted for each of the 18 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), 226(b)(1)(B), and 226(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture amount of $1,440,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, ASC Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,440,000 for willful or repeated violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(2), 64.703(a)(3)(i),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
      • refusal to offer shared transport for intraLATA traffic. 16. For all of the reasons we have discussed above, we find that SBC's conduct justifies the forfeiture amount that we proposed in the NAL. We therefore affirm the $6,000,000 forfeiture amount originally proposed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,72 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,73 SBC Communications SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-293A1.html
      • on its antenna structure between sunset and sunrise in willful violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, Section 1.115(g) of the Rules,18 Eure Family Limited Partnership's application for review IS DENIED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.19 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-294A1.html
      • the instances cited in the NAL and requests that the Commission reduce the total base forfeiture amount to $6,500. AT&T Wireless also argues that the Commission's decision in the NAL to triple the aggregate base forfeiture amount was unwarranted. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,13 Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining AT&T Wireless's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-2A1.html
      • the forfeiture proposed in the NAL. We therefore issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 against 21st Century Fax(es) Limited for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders.27 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Limited IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-300A1.html
      • 19, 2001, the Commission released the referenced NAL against Callais in the amount of $133,000. Callais filed its response to the NAL on March 5, 2001, requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 12. The Commission assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),21 Section 1.80 of the Rules,22 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act23 requires that, in examining Callais's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-312A1.html
      • consumer-grade portable receiver to tune into the station does not meet the transmission system monitoring and control requirements of Section 73.1400. Based on the evidence, we further find that A-O apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1400 of the Rules by failing to have adequate transmission system monitoring and control. 22. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')28 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits for transmitting tower antennas in Section 1.1310.29 However, the FCC has set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for failure to comply with other public safety related rules, such as prescribed antenna structure lighting
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-319A1.html
      • 73.3540 of the Commission's rules (application for voluntary assignment of control),3 by transferring control of Station WMGA(AM) to Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. (``DBI''), Aubrey Smith (``Smith''), and Sam and Gracie Zamarron (``the Zamarrons'') without prior authorization of the Commission; and for its willful and repeated failure to respond to official Commission correspondence ordering it to respond. 2. Also, pursuant to Section 1.80(g) of the Commission's rules,4 this Order constitutes notice of opportunity for hearing to determine whether, in addition to or as an alternative to license revocation and/or cease and desist order, monetary forfeitures should be imposed against RMI for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules. II. Background 3. The licensee of record for Station WMGA(AM) is RMI. However, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-31A1.html
      • amount.15 Moreover, in view of the intentional nature of Peninsula's current violations, we do not find that Peninsula's past broadcast record warrants a downward adjustment. Accordingly, we find that the proposed $140,000 forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, Peninsula Communications, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) for violating Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 301, by operating the seven captioned translator stations subsequent to midnight May 19, 2001. 10. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-61A1.html
      • 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b), the Application for Review filed by SBC Communications Inc. IS GRANTED as to its request for a modification of the forfeiture amount and IS DENIED in all other respects. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, SBC Communications Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of eighty- four thousand dollars ($84,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules and orders requiring ILECs promptly to post on the ILEC's Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-7A1.html
      • ability to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture so that forfeitures against ``large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business.''52 These factors together persuade us that we should propose the statutory maximum forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,53 and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,54 SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-93A1.html
      • Commission: INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny an application for review filed by KASA Radio Hogar, Inc. (``KASA Radio''), licensee of Radio Station KDAP(AM), of the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MO&O")1 issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),2 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"), the Enforcement Bureau found KASA Radio liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 73.54(d) (failure to provide a copy of the station's antenna resistance and reactance measurements during an inspection); 73.1350(c)(1) (failure to have the proper monitoring equipment installed at the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc004.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc004.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc005.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc005.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc005.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc006.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc006.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc008.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc008.pdf
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 65.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc008.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc009.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/eb02tc009.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/fcc02002.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/fcc02002.pdf
      • the forfeiture proposed in the NAL. We therefore issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 against 21st Century Fax(es) Limited for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders.27 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Limited IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1011A1.html
      • IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),10 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,11 Concilio's petition for reconsideration of the October 3, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $15,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.12 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1033A1.html
      • operate the station at daytime power 24 hours per day and that he thought that the station had been identifying by call sign. Finally, Monroe indicates that all of the violations have been corrected. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Monroe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1051A1.html
      • pursuant to Section 405 of the Act7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 Mr. Muoz's petition for reconsideration of the October 24, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the monetary forfeiture IS REDUCED to $2,000 and IS DENIED in all other respects. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1052A1.html
      • Cornbelt must submit the report described in Paragraph 7, above, no more than thirty (30) days prior to resuming broadcasting, to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7-A820, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.8 If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1085A1.html
      • good visibility of the tower in violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules. Accordingly, we cancel the NAL. Because we are canceling the NAL, we need not address the other arguments raised by Pinnacle in its response. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700016, issued to Pinnacle Towers, Inc. IS CANCELED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Pinnacle Towers, Inc., 301 N. Cattlemen Road, 3rd Floor, Sarasota, Florida 34232, and to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1086A1.html
      • However, Adelphia states that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 25, 2002, and requests relief from the $2,000 forfeiture proposed in the NAL in light of the financial hardship it now faces. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Adelphia's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1270A1.html
      • base was unlocked and the gate itself was open. Anastos Media, instead, surmises that an unknown third-party cut the lock and requests that we reduce or cancel the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 5. The Buffalo Office Resident Agent assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,3 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Anastos Media's response and supplemental response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1271A1.html
      • a small market AM station using a Spanish news and talk format to provide ``an important new radio service,'' and that the proposed forfeiture amount would result in a financial burden for the station. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Gold Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1366A1.html
      • is not rescinded, the forfeiture should be reduced because the violation was minor, it displayed good faith after being informed of the violation, and it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Morris's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1435A1.html
      • and to register its antenna structure. Finally, Simes asserts that it cannot afford to pay the forfeiture and provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Simes's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1459A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Assondieu Fortune.2 Mr. Fortune has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Assondieu Fortune IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1479A1.html
      • during which Smith operated without the defective equipment, December 30, 2001 through February 13, 2002, did not exceed the number of days permitted it to do so by the Rule. Thus, we find that the monetary forfeiture should be cancelled.4 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,5 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 the NAL issued to Smith Broadcasting of Santa Barbara, LP IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Smith Broadcasting of Santa Barbara, LP, 730 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93102. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1504A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ebanks.2 Mr. Ebanks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Omar A. Ebanks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1505A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $12,000 to Mr. Kamm.2 Mr. Kamm has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Scott E. Kamm IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1513A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles.2 Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Rawlins Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1514A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to J Transport.2 J Transport has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 J Transport, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1519A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $13,000 to Minority Business.2 Minority Business has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Minority Business and Housing Development, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1350(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1535A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alejandro.2 Mr. Alejandro has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Fernando Alejandro IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1536A1.html
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Frederic.2 Mr. Frederic has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Emmanuel Frederic IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1549A1.html
      • In support of this assertion, Mr. Hood submits his tax returns for 2000 and 2001 and notes that he is selling the station for substantially less than he paid for it two years ago.5 III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Lighthouse's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1550A1.html
      • and reporting equipment. Finally, Mortenson argues that no harm resulted from the lights being out for one day and that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules supports cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mortenson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1551A1.html
      • Commission's rules. In addition, Tri- County maintains that payment of the proposed forfeiture will impose a hardship on it and provides its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Tri-County's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1556A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mexicana.2 Mexicana has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mexicana Car and Limousine Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1568A1.html
      • forfeiture under an installment plan. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.106(j) of the Rules,7 the petition for reconsideration filed on January 22, 2003 by Alpha Ambulance, Inc. IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1683A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Pamal.2 Pamal has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Pamal Broadcasting, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 17.57 of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-168A1.html
      • outage and then promptly installed a new fail-safe strobe ``flash head'' and related failure detector which will afford automatic notification in the event of a bulb failure as well as a basic power failure. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining SCCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1713A1.html
      • tower base, but FCC personnel could not see it from outside the fence, the second involved a case where the tower was voluntarily registered, and Titan has no record of receiving the third NOV. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Titan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1726A1.html
      • the requirements of Section 17.48 of the Rules by promptly reporting the obstruction light outage to the Miami FSS, so that the FSS could open a NOTAM. We therefore find that cancellation of the NAL is warranted. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 the Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700023, issued to Florida Cellular Service, LLC. IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Florida Cellular Service, LLC, 17330 Preston Road, Suite 100A, Dallas, Texas 75252, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1727A1.html
      • posted the ASR number as required, but that a contractor working for BellSouth bulldozed the ASR number sign during construction of a new BellSouth fiber system. Under these circumstances, we find that cancellation of the proposed $2,000 forfeiture is appropriate.4 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,5 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 the NAL IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall by sent by first class and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Chuck Moffatt, Moffatt Properties Leasing LLC, 1960 McCullough Boulevard, Tupelo, Mississippi 38801. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 17.4(g). 2 ASR
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1860A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Ashley.2 Ashley has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 John W. Ashley d/b/a Ashley Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1880A1.html
      • forfeiture is cancelled or substantially reduced. WPGS also provides copies of its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of its claim that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining WPGS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1910A1.html
      • is a very small percentage of its gross revenues. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 Mount Rushmore's petition for reconsideration of the October 29, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules8 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1940A1.html
      • Roser asserts, is ``spotless.'' Finally, Roser argues that the imposition of an $11,000 monetary forfeiture would ``severely damage'' it and that it would be forced to consider terminating one or more of its employees. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Roser's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2032A1.html
      • marine coast station on VHF Marine Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) in violation of Section 301 of the Act. On July 8, 2002, Amethyst filed a response to the NAL in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Amethyst's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2068A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Bloom.2 Mr. Bloom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Brian N. Bloom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2079A1.html
      • because it took swift actions to correct the violations in both instances. Alltel contends that the previous contractor that it hired after receipt of the NOV in 2001 used substandard materials and ``victimized'' Alltel. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Alltel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2086A1.html
      • a hazard to air navigation. Finally, St. Louis Mobile claims that it is unable to pay the proposed $3,000 forfeiture and provides balance sheets for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this claim. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining St. Louis Mobile's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2126A1.html
      • to the single lighting malfunction'' and ``implementing a swift remedy'' and by its having ``not experienced a similar equipment failure or been the subject of a violation of Commission Rules pertaining to tower lighting.'' III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining VoiceStream's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2140A1.html
      • other defects that would require repainting under Section 17.50 of the Rules or the Advisory Circular. Finally, Midwest cites its history of overall compliance in requesting a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Midwest's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-217A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Verizon Wireless.2 Verizon Wireless has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.23 and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-218A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mediacom.2 Mediacom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Mediacom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-219A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Tralyn.2 Tralyn has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Tralyn Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-220A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to North American.2 North American has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 North American Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-221A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to Qwest.2 Qwest has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Qwest Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(g) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-222A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Metro Birch.2 Metro Birch has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Metro Birch IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.49 and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2232A1.html
      • level on May 8, 2002. The Atlanta Office issued the subject NAL on June 24, 2002 to Atlantic Beach Radio for failing to maintain operational EAS equipment and operating with excessive power. III. Discussion 7. The District Director assessed the forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Atlantic Beach Radio's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2253A1.html
      • does not own WDNT's antenna structure and did not own it at the time of the alleged violation.4 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Brewer's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED; and that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act7 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 the $3,000 monetary forfeiture issued to Brewer IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to J.L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC, 1305 Carter Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2342A1.html
      • this violation. Finally, Rotijefco asserts that payment of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on it and submits its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Rotijefco's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2360A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Southern.2 Southern has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Southern IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2366A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Air Paging.2 Air Paging has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Air Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2367A1.html
      • during the inspection, the agent only mentioned the fence ``in passing'' and never inquired again about the fence or returned to the station to reinspect the fence. For these reasons, the licensee contends that the forfeiture should be rescinded or reduced. III. DISCUSSION 6.The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining WOYK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2369A1.html
      • Diego office traveled to Escondido, California, to determine whether station KSKT-CA has a main studio at 2230 Micro Place. On both occasions, the agents found that there is no main studio at that location. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Blue Skies's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2371A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Brown.2 Mr. Brown has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Mr. Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2589A1.html
      • transmitter was observed by the agent. Rev. Louis concludes that the Commission never found a ``good functioning radio transmitter'' at the church, and that he did not violate Section 301 of the Act. III. DISCUSSION 12. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Rev. Louis's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2591A1.html
      • calls will not be broadcast without the consent of the parties involved.''5 In this case, we find that Infinity apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording and broadcasting Ms. Tanner's conversation without giving her prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. 5. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules,7 each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2614A1.html
      • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures he has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Mr. Autry's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Billy R. Autry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $11,000 for willfully violating Section 73.49 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1745 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2615A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this Order demonstrating that it has filed an antenna structure registration application. Best Country's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Best Country.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Best Country Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2616A1.html
      • has hired another engineer to file Forms 301 and 302 with the Commission and is notifying the Federal Aviation Administration of the new coordinates.4 For these reasons, O'Quinn requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining O'Quinn's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2620A1.html
      • NAL is inconsistent with several recent forfeiture orders issued with respect to Section 17.50 painting violations. For all of these reasons, Pinnacle requests that the proposed forfeiture be eliminated or substantially reduced. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Pinnacle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2645A1.html
      • able to manage his own funds. The evaluation did not state that Mr. Kluz was unable to willfully violate Section 95.411, or that Mr. Kluz was unable to know the actions he takes. III. DISCUSSION 14. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Kluz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2661A1.html
      • he has a history of overall compliance. Finally, Mr. Joseph asserts that payment of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on him and submits financial information for 1999, 2000, and 2001 in support of this assertion. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Joseph's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2663A1.html
      • of FM broadcast transmitters. 2. After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to support a finding that Networx operated the FM broadcast transmitters at the location specified by the NAL in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act2 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the proposed $10,000 monetary forfeiture against Networx IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Networx Corporation, 1 Fishers Road, Pittsford, New York 14534, and to its counsel, Timothy K. Brady, Esquire, P.O. Box 71309, Newnan, Georgia 30271.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2664A1.html
      • AFA concludes that the NAL should be canceled on the basis of its history of overall compliance and because the proposed forfeiture amount is disproportionately punitive given Station KAUF's annual revenue. III. DISCUSSION 7. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining AFA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-267A1.html
      • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to International.2 International has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (''Rules''),4 International Car Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1560(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-268A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Walker.2 Mr. Walker has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Ian R. Walker IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-269A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alusma.2 Mr. Alusma has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Josue Alusma IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-270A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Coffee County.2 Coffee County has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Coffee County IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2719A1.html
      • ``Opticom,'' and ``One Call.'' The Commission will address the NAL as it relates to OCMC, Inc. in a separate order. Nothing herein constitutes a decision with respect to OCMC, Inc. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 503(b),5 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,6 and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311,7 that the Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Apparent Liability with regard to One Call Internet, Inc. IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-271A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Brewer.2 Brewer has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4J.L. Brewer Broadcasting of Cleveland, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2722A1.html
      • Riordan, which, as noted supra, concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Star and Northeast intended to violate the anti- collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. 23. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Star may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Star's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2723A1.html
      • noted supra, the August 29 conversation concerned bidding strategy. Violations of the anti-collusion rule during an auction directly threaten the integrity and competitiveness of the auctions process. Northeast and Star intended to violate the anti-collusion rule by engaging in communications regarding bidding strategy -- precisely the type of communications that the rule was adopted to prohibit. 23. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Northeast may avail itself of the opportunity to present mitigating evidence showing why a forfeiture should not be imposed or why the amount should be adjusted downward. Upon receipt of such evidence, we will consider all relevant factors, including Northeast's overall compliance history. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2741A1.html
      • what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Air Paging's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Air Paging.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Air Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 1.903(a), 90.403(f) and 90.425(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2742A1.html
      • the stations and provides the stations' tax returns for 1998 through 2001 in support of this claim. Ms. Suh accordingly requests that the forfeiture be canceled or reduced to no more than $3,000. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Suh's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2780A1.html
      • it acted in ``good faith'' by quickly correcting the deficiencies,3 that it has ``an exemplary record of compliance'' and that payment of the full forfeiture amount would be ``a difficult burden'' for Calvary. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Calvary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2824A1.html
      • Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 and Sections 1.106 of the Rules,6 Ho'ona'auao Community Television, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the February 4, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent that the $4,000 monetary forfeiture IS REDUCED to $2,000. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-282A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to WHYZ.2 WHYZ has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 WHYZ Radio, L.P. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2853A1.html
      • determined that WCSS apparently committed a willful and repeated violation of a Commission order by failing to provide information and documents directed by the Bureau. We have further determined that WCSS is apparently liable in the amount of $10,000. 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. (``WCSS'') IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $ 10,000 for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order as described in the paragraphs above.27
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2888A1.html
      • to allow the agents to inspect his station. In addition, Mr. Woods submitted financial documentation concerning his inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture and also stated that he had taken medication before the agents arrived at his house. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Woods' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2889A1.html
      • on the basis of a telegram from the FCC (received by the previous licensee of WANA), that WANA's tower was not required to be registered because it has no marking or lighting requirements.4 III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Lankford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2900A1.html
      • and took prompt remedial action following the inspection. Clarke also argues that it is ``a small, privately owned company and the amount of the forfeiture is significant to an operator of Clarke's size.'' III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Clarke's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3019A1.html
      • Mount Rushmore must submit the report described in Paragraph 8, no more than thirty (30) after release of this order, to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety Division, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7-A820, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules12 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.13 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3061A1.html
      • of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent violation, we believe it appropriate that Tempe be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation14 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that the base amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be the appropriate proposed forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3147A1.html
      • Colorado Broadcasters Association, and had an FCC Regulatory Compliance Certification. Finally, Commonwealth asserts that the proposed forfeiture amount issued to its ``small market station'' will play a determining factor in its future financial existence. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Commonwealth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3159A1.html
      • forfeiture, arguing that its attempts to register the tower and a history of overall compliance mitigate the violations. Sutro also contends that, if a forfeiture is imposed, it should be no more than $500. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Sutro's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3179A1.html
      • a new No Hazard determination on the basis of a tower height of 202 feet. The new No Hazard determination indicates that no painting or lighting is now required for FBS's antenna structure. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining FBS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3180A1.html
      • that Nextmedia did not willfully violate either Section 17.47(a)(1) or 17.48(a). We also conclude that, based on Nextmedia's good faith efforts to comply and its history of overall compliance, no forfeiture should be imposed for its violation of Section 17.51(a). 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,3 and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the NAL issued to Nextmedia Operating, Inc. on August 28, 2002 IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail to Nextmedia Operating, Inc., 6312 Fiddlers Green Circle, Englewood, Colorado 80111. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3200A1.html
      • antenna structure). 3. Hill Country filed its response to the NAL on October 17, 2002.4 In response to the NAL, Hill Country seeks a reduction of the forfeiture based upon ``its history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules.''5 II. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Hill Country's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3236A1.html
      • maintain an effective locked fence or other enclosure around the base of its antenna tower in willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. In its response, Cumulus requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Cumulus's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3274A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Suwannee Cable TV.2 Suwannee Cable TV has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Suwannee Cable TV IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 76.605(a)(12) and 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3276A1.html
      • financial constraints.'' Finally, ``[b]y way of mitigation,'' Max Media explained that the delay in replacing the top high intensity light was due to a malfunctioning automatic alarm system, which Continental had warranted to be in compliance with FCC requirements.12 III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,13 Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Max Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-330A1.html
      • filed with the Commission on August 16, 2002, and was granted on the same day. Haviland requests that the Commission take into consideration its immediate actions once it became aware of the ``regulatory irregularity.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Haviland's response, and supplement thereto, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3314A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Green.2 Mr. Green has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Patrick S. Green IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-331A1.html
      • KYLZ-FM1 was an isolated incident and that the station caused no interference during the brief period of the violation. Finally, AGM asserts that it has an overall record of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AGM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3320A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Davies' report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Davies Communications Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-332A1.html
      • that it has taken measures to ensure that the violation does not recur. Finally, MariTEL asserts that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules warrants reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining MariTEL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3339A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Chatterbox's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Chatterbox, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-336A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Ho'ona'auao.2 Ho'ona'auao has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Ho'ona'auao Community Television, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.61(a)(1)(v) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-337A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles.2 Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Marcel Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3408A1.html
      • which it subsequently reported to the local police, and requested that the Commission consider reducing the forfeiture as a result. Valley provided no other information in its response regarding the signal leakage. III. DISCUSSION 7. The Commission assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),14 Section 1.80 of the Rules,15 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Valley's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3410A1.html
      • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violation and ensure that it does not recur. Radio Centre's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Radio Centre, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3412A1.html
      • forfeiture, without the aforementioned process, is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. 14. Finally, Access.1 argues that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced based on its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 15. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Access.1's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3429A1.html
      • submits tax returns from 1999 - 2000. Despite requesting additional time to produce documentation in support of its request for cancellation of the proposed fine, J & W has produced no such documentation. III DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining J & W's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-342A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $15,000 to Small Town.2 Small Town has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Small Town Radio Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3431A1.html
      • violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and such other matters as justice requires. Under the circumstances, we believe a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) is apparently warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 15 Pacifica Broadcasting Company is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) for its willful and repeated violation of section 301 of the Act and section 73.1690 of the Commission's rules.16 9. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules that within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3513A1.html
      • remain a Commission licensee and thus whether its captioned broadcast license should be revoked.5 3. The OSC also ordered the Presiding Judge, notwithstanding the resolution of the designated issues, to determine whether the Commission should impose a monetary forfeiture against RMI for having willfully and repeatedly violated numerous statutory and regulatory provisions administered by the Commission.6 In accordance with Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,7 the OSC set the maximum forfeiture amount at $300,000.8 4. The OSC ordered RMI, pursuant to Section 1.91(c) of the Commission's rules,9 within thirty days of its receipt of the OSC (i.e., by December 26, 2002), to file a written notice of appearance in order to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard.10 The OSC
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3538A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 Deans Cablevision's petition for reconsideration of the December 12, 2002, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $10,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules 8 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3540A1.html
      • Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Lovelock.2 Lovelock has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission Rules (``Rules''),4 Annetta Lovelock Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Rum Runner Caribbean Restaurant & Lounge IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3544A1.html
      • under the Act.20 In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')22 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,23 the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Accordingly, we are proposing a forfeiture in the amount of $7,000. We caution Johannus that any subsequent importing and marketing of non-compliant digital electronic organs will result in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-354A1.html
      • Commission's Tampa, Florida, Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Accessory.2 Accessory has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (''Rules''),4 Accessory Connection Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully violating Sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-355A1.html
      • J4 Broadcasting does not dispute that it violated these rules. However, J4 Broadcasting requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture and submits its tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001 in support of this request. III. DISCUSSION 11. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining J4 Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3564A1.html
      • X requests substantial reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture citing the immediate measures it took to correct the violations noted in the NAL. The response is also accompanied by financial statements. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Radio X's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-356A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Piedmont.2 Piedmont has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Piedmont Radio Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 17.4(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-361A1.html
      • had acquired USA Mobile prior to the September 15, 2000 reporting deadline through an assignment of license, and USA Mobile no longer existed prior to September 15, 2000. After considering Arch's response and reviewing the record, we find that the proposed monetary forfeiture should be cancelled. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the NAL issued to USA Mobile Communications, Inc. II IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Arch Wireless, Inc., 1800 West Park Drive, Suite 250, Westborough, MA 01581 and to its counsel, L. Charles Keller, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-362A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to P & G.2 P & G has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 P & G Properties, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3638A1.html
      • $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules.38 Based upon our review of all the pertinent factors as required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,39 Isothermal Community College is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Isothermal Community
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-363A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Marshall County.2 Marshall County has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Marshall County Radio Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3654A1.html
      • work on tower registration for Bay Minette and Atmore, other consulting/ repair visit time to date.'' SMC also provides a letter dated September 4, 2002, certifying that the EAS equipment has been repaired. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining SMC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3660A1.html
      • contended that if a forfeiture is warranted, it should be reduced, citing cases in which the Commission issued forfeitures in lesser amounts for unlicensed operation, or reduced forfeitures issued to licensees based on the short period of unlicensed operation.4 III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').7 In examining Gateway's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3785A1.html
      • violator is a broadcast station licensee.40 In determining the appropriate amount, we consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,41 including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''42 13. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules43 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture of $10,000 for violation of public file rules. As detailed above, it appears that M-H, on two different dates, did not make its public file available for inspection when requested to do so, contrary to section 73.3526(c) of the Commission's rules.44 Offsetting these apparent violations is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3819A1.html
      • Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcast Stations, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911 (1982), recon., 97 FCC 2d 255 (1984). 20 See, e.g. In the Matter of Rego, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 16795, 16797 (EB 2001), citing Gaffney Broadcasting, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 912, 913 (1970). 21 See WTTW, supra. 22 Id. 23 See Note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3819A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3819A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3851A1.html
      • to expedite the painting.3 Finally, Barinowski states that it believed that the antenna structure was not in violation and that the painting, which occurred on October 4, 2002, prevented a future violation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Barinowski's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3864A1.html
      • at 4. 16 See Xavier, 5 FCC Rcd 4920. 17 See id. 18 See Public Notice, 7 FCC Rcd 827. 19 47 U.S.C. 399b and 47 C.F.R. 73.503. 20 See 2001 Response. 21 See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, 5 FCC Rcd 7212. 22 47 C.F.R. 74.1231(g). 23 See Note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). 24 47 U.S.C. 399b. 25 47 C.F.R. 73.503. 26 47 C.F.R. 74.1231(g). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3887A1.html
      • justice may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,24 and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,25 that ABC, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, ABC, Inc. SHALL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3967A1.html
      • ) NAL/ Acct. No. 200132080012 Licensee of Station KHWK(FM), ) FRN 0010014504 Tonopah, NV ) Facility ID No. 17239 ) ) ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: December 15, 2003 Released: December 17, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we impose a monetary forfeiture of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) on Donald W. Kaminski, Jr., licensee of Station KHWK(FM), Tonopah, Nevada, for his willful failure to respond to a written Commission inquiry in violation of section 73.1015 of the Commission's rules.2 II. BACKGROUND The Commission, by the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, acting pursuant to delegated authority, issued
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3969A1.html
      • obstruction marking in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules. Tower Properties filed a response to the NAL on October 21, 2002, and supplemented its response on October 30, 2003. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 Section 1.80 of the Rules,3 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303 (1999). In examining Tower Properties' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4021A1.html
      • from its tower #1216312, and suggests that the agent could have observed the wrong tower. Lastly, Signal states that none of its towers had ever been cited for any violations of Commission rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Signal's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4024A1.html
      • the NAL on October 24, 2002. Hunt's response essentially admits the violations. However, Hunt explains how it has corrected the violations, and seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Hunt's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4026A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4026A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4026A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4032A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4046A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4046A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4046A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4047A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4047A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4047A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4051A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4051A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4051A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4061A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4061A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4061A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4062A1.html
      • Minority Television Project, Inc. (``Minority''), licensee of noncommercial educational television Station KMTP-TV, San Francisco, California, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),1 and section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules.2 We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4). We further dismiss Minority's pending June 13, 2000, Request for Declaratory Ruling as moot. II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arose from allegations raised in a Media Bureau (``MB'') proceeding and referred to the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for resolution. In the MB proceeding, Minority submitted a Petition for Declaratory Ruling that sought Commission approval of numerous underwriting announcements that the station
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4064A1.html
      • for violating Sections 73.49 ($7,000), 17.21 ($10,000), and 73.1745(a) ($4,000) of the Rules. HCI filed a response on October 30, 2002 in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining HCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4093A1.html
      • 45 days of its removal. Lake Placid requests the NAL be cancelled under Section 11.35(b) because its EAS equipment was repaired or replaced within the 60 day period authorization in that provision. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Lake Placid's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-4114A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-423A1.html
      • Plan Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (``NRUF'') Report that was due on September 15, 2000.2 ATX responded to the NAL and states that it filed the September 15, 2000 NRUF report. After considering ATX's response and reviewing the record, we find that we should cancel the proposed monetary forfeiture.3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b) and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the NAL issued to ATX Telecommunications Services, Ltd. IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Scott Kellogg, Regulatory Affairs, ATX Telecommunications Services, Ltd., 225 West Ohio, Suite 200, Chicago, Illinois 60610. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 See ATX Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-424A1.html
      • has been issued and the recipient appears to continue to engage in the same rule violation, we are not inclined to rescind or adjust the forfeiture amount even where the recipient has filed for bankruptcy protection.10 Accordingly, we affirm the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that North American Telecommunications Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. For collection, the Commission will file a proof of claim at the appropriate time in North American
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-441A1.html
      • persuaded that a reduction of the forfeiture in this case based on AFA's history of compliance is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,9 the petition for reconsideration filed by American Family Association IS DENIED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.10 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-463A1.html
      • facts and circumstances presented and to issue a forfeiture regardless of whether or not there is a bankruptcy.10 Thus, a carrier's bankruptcy will not preclude scrutiny of its compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules, and we will take enforcement action where appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(b), and 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), the Notice of Apparent Liability issued to Net-Tel Corporation IS CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Trustee Wendel W. Webster, c/o Linda Correia, Esq., Webster, Fredrickson & Brackshaw, 1819 H Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-469A1.html
      • that the lyrics of ``Your Revolution,'' measured by contemporary community standards, are not patently offensive and therefore not indecent. Accordingly, we rescind the NAL. 10. In light of our decision rescinding the NAL, we dismiss as moot Sarah Jones's informal request filed October 2, 2002. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's May 17, 2001 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to The KBOO Foundation, licensee of noncommercial Station KBOO-FM, is hereby RESCINDED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, the informal request, filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.41, by Sarah Jones on October 2, 2002,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-579A1.html
      • that a reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted.9 We have reviewed the response in light of the statutory factors set forth above, and find that AWS and Vanguard have justified a reduction of the proposed forfeiture penalty from $9,000 to $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc., FORFEIT to the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to report actual and forecast number usage. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-621A1.html
      • authorization, as described above. We have further determined that Arbros is apparently liable in the amount of $5000 for each of the violations of section 214 of the Act and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules. 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Arbros Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $50,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 214(a) of the Act30 and sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 as described
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-691A1.html
      • of the FAA's No Hazard determination issued on March 25, 2002, which specifically requires painting and lighting. In addition, Morgan argues that it did not act willfully and that it ``expeditiously'' corrected the violations.4 III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Morgan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-769A1.html
      • filed by Madison Broadcasting Group, Inc. ("Madison"), former licensee of station WLVA(AM) and former owner of five antenna structures in Lynchburg, Virginia (antenna structure registration numbers 1065920, 1065921, 1065922, 1065923, and 1065924) of the Forfeiture Order1 issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"),2 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"),3 the Enforcement Bureau found Madison liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for willful violation of Sections 17.4(g) (failure to post its antenna structure registration numbers) and 17.50 (failure to maintain specified painting on its five antenna structures) of the Rules.4 II. BACKRGOUND 2. On February 28, 2002, a Commission agent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-770A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')3 in the amount of $21,000 to Ramh. Ramh has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Ramh Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1125, 73.1350, and 73.1400 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1560 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-780A1.html
      • that the forfeiture was proposed in error and the NAL must be rescinded because the antenna structure was surrounded by a protective property fence, and therefore was not accessible to the general public. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Wilson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-825A2.html
      • appropriate sanction. If such conduct is considered by the Bureau in determining an appropriate sanction, SBC will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of SBC's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. 18. SBC's decision to enter into this Consent Decree is expressly contingent upon issuance of an Order that is consistent with this Consent Decree, and which adopts the Consent Decree without change, addition or modification. 19. SBC waives any and all rights it may have to seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal or stay, or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-840A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $10,000 to Radio 810. Radio 810 has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Radio 810 IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 73.1215(a), 73.1350(d)(2), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-858A1.html
      • radio equipment at the request of the FCC agents. Finally, Mr. Hyppolite asserts that he is unable to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture and provides financial information in support of his request for reduction of the proposed forfeiture to $2,000. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Hyppolite's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-868A1.html
      • records of the antenna structure's ownership, it promptly took steps to remedy the violation. Finally, East Tennessee submits that its overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules warrants reduction of the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining East Tennessee's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-869A1.html
      • ``nearing the end of it normal life and would need replacement soon.'' Finally, Needham asserts that, after being informed that the tower was noncompliant, he had it repainted between May 17 and 25, 2002. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Needham's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-870A1.html
      • Chief of the Commission's former Mass Media Bureau (now Media Bureau), rescinded Tidewater's forfeiture for the violation.8 Applying the two downward adjustment criteria to this case (good faith and history of overall compliance),9 we find sufficient reason to cancel Tidewater's $10,000 forfeiture. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules,10 Tidewater's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED and the $10,000 forfeiture is IS CANCELLED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Tidewater Communications, Inc., 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 399, Chesapeake, Virginia, and to its counsel, Gary S. Smithwick,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230319A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230319A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230319A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230468A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230590A1.html
      • established business relationship at the time the call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230590A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-230590A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-230905A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231108A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231108A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231108A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231326A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231326A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231326A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231533A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231533A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-231533A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-231691A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232254A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232462A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232799A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-232806A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232806A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232806A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233048A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233048A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233048A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233250A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233437A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233437A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233437A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-233655A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233655A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-233655A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234202A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234315A1.html
      • 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 227; 47 C.F.R. 64.1200. 2 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e). 3 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 4 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234315A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234315A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234693A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234693A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-234693A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-234850A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235091A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235091A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235091A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235265A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235265A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235265A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235497A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235727A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235727A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235727A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-235941A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235941A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235941A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-236317A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-236526A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236526A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236526A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-236857A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236857A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-236857A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237113A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237113A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237113A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237311A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237311A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237311A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237312A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237312A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237312A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237313A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237313A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237313A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237314A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237314A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237314A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237315A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237315A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237315A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237333A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237556A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-237936A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237936A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-237936A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238312A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238312A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238312A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238533A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238872A1.html
      • 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 47 U.S.C. 227; 47 C.F.R. 64.1200. 2 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e). 3 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 4 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238872A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238872A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-238960A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239187A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239456A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239620A1.html
      • call is made, or [is made by or on behalf of] a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2), (c); see also 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B) (prohibiting all prerecorded calls to residential lines ``unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission....''). 3 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239620A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239620A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-239875A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-240118A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-240410A1.html
      • the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call, and ... shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(d)(e)(2)(iv) (imposing identification requirements for prerecorded messages delivered by automatic telephone dialing systems). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240410A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240410A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-240795A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241089A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241389A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241786A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-241846A2.html
      • $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1216 of the rules.38 Based upon our review of all the pertinent factors as required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,39 Isothermal Community College is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Isothermal Community
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-242041A1.html
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-242104A1.html
      • citation are to the rules as they existed at the time of the facts at issue here. 2 See attached complaints, IC nos. 03-W6261598, 03-W5946896, 02-N85773. 3 See attached complaint, IC no. 02-N85773 4 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e) (2002). 5 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3)(2002). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242104A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242104A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-242161A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DOC-287216A1.html
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). The phrase "unsolicited advertisement" is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as "any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define "telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/EB-02-TC-268.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/EB-02-TC-268.pdf
      • number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-107A1.html
      • conduct is considered by the Commission or its delegated authority in determining an appropriate sanction, Qwest will not be estopped from litigating the issues of whether such conduct or the facts involved in such conduct actually violated the Act or the Commission's rules, the merits of Qwest's conduct, or the relevance or weight to be given such conduct under section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. 16. Qwest waives any rights it may have under any provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504. 17. In the event that this Consent Decree is rendered invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, this Consent Decree shall become null and void and may not be used in any manner in any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-109A1.html
      • forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''56 20. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')57 and Section 1.80 of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for operation at an unauthorized location. However, a significant upward adjustment is justified in this case since Western's violation continued for three and a half years after WTB informed Western that the tower ``may have'' a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-181A1.html
      • application for review filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC of the Enforcement Bureau's October 18, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order for NAL No. 200132260001 IS hereby GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and DENIED in all other respects. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``the Act'')9 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 Radio One Licenses, LLC shall pay the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the above- stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-199A1.html
      • a forfeiture of $283,800. We also admonish Verizon for not accurately and timely posting affiliate transactions on its Internet site in violation of section 272(b)(5) of the Act and section 53.203(e) of the rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 220(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 220(d), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that the Verizon Telephone Companies are hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of two hundred eighty-three thousand, eight hundred dollars ($283,800) for violating section 32.27(c) of the Commission's rules in transactions with its affiliates. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-231A1.html
      • separately, a report, supported by a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury of a corporate officer, stating its plan to come into compliance with the relevant payment and reporting rules discussed here. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 37. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Globcom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $806,861 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-233A1.html
      • 30, 2003 Released: October 2, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant complaints from Reverend Michael G. Taylor and from Catherine P. Henry2 and find that AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC (``AMFM''), licensee of Station WWDC-FM, Washington, DC, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the station during its May 7 and 8, 2002, broadcasts of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-234A1.html
      • 30, 2003 Released: October 2, 2003 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a separate statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,3 we grant, in part, and deny, in part, complaints from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Robert E. Amling4 alleging that, during its broadcast of the ``Opie & Anthony Show'' program on August 15, 2002, over Station WNEW(FM), New York, New York, the station licensee, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. (``Infinity Broadcasting ''), aired
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-258A1.html
      • failing to adequately take measures to prevent the public from accessing areas that exceeded the RFR exposure limits. We also find that the four licensees violated our rules by failing to file any Environmental Assessment statements with the Commission although each was required to do so by September 1, 2000.24 16. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')25 does not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.26 However, we recently determined that an appropriate base forfeiture amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, noting the public safety nature of the rules.27 17. We propose the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-264A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''26 16. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')27 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,28 the base forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed lighting and marking requirements is $10,000 for each violation. The base forfeiture amount for failure to file required forms or information (e.g., failure to file an antenna registration form) is $3,000 for each
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-267A1.html
      • to our Do-Not-Call requirements, as described above. We have further determined that AT&T is apparently liable in the amount of $10,000 for each of the violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules, for a total of $780,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that AT&T Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $780,000 for willful or repeated violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A.24 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-299A1.html
      • Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'')7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Radio One Licenses, LLC of the Commission's July 22, 2003 Memorandum Opinion and Order for NAL No. 200132260001 IS hereby DENIED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act9 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 Radio One Licenses, LLC shall pay the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the above-stated violations within 30 days of the release date of this Order. Payment may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the Federal Communications Commission. The remittance should be marked ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132260001, FRN
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-302A1.html
      • this is such a violation.15 B. Future Cases 7. We do not address Infinity's arguments regarding the constitutionality of revocation or imposition of separate forfeitures for multiple violations because we do not impose those sanctions in this case. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-seven thousand five-hundred dollars ($27,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. 9. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-332A1.html
      • cannot now penalize A-O for violation of the RFR rules after having reviewed A-O's RFR analysis; and that the Commission ``articulated no rational basis'' for specifying a $10,000 base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 73.1310 of the Rules. III. Discussion 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,12 Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining A-O's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-43A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.19 However, we think that a substantial proposed forfeiture for this violation is warranted. Violation of the E911 rules is extremely serious because these rules are intended to promote safety of life. The Phase I requirements set forth in Section 20.18(d) have been
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-67A1.html
      • we find that WebNet has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for reconsidering the WebNet NAL. Further, WebNet has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that WebNet Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $1,200,000 for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred carrier conversions.82 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-71A1.html
      • that children may have been in the audience at the time that the material at issue was broadcast on January 9, 2002 and, therefore, the material broadcast is legally actionable. By broadcasting this material, WKRK-FM apparently violated the prohibitions in the Act and the Commission's rules against broadcast indecency. 12. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-94A1.html
      • also instruct the Enforcement Bureau to do a follow-up investigation to determine whether Ms. Salazar has come into compliance and, if she has not, to take or recommend further enforcement action as appropriate, including the possibility of initiating a license revocation proceeding. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Ms. Salazar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $39,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(q) of the Act and Sections 73.1350(a) and 17.51 of the Rules and for willfully violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a), and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004.html
      • FORFEITURE ORDER [313]Forrester, et al., KLYR(AM), Clarksville, Arkansas 06-21-2004 ORDER [314]APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC, Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc. dba Pacific Telemanagement Services, and Intera Communications Corp. v. Telstar International, Inc. 06-21-2004 M.O.&O. [315]Radio 810 Nashville, Limited, WMGC(AM), Murfreesboro, Tennessee 06-21-2004 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [316]Middle Georgia Communications, Inc., WMGZ(FM), Eatonton, Georgia 06-18-2004 ORDER [317]Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation 06-18-2004 NAL [318]DIRECTV, Inc. 06-18-2004 FORFEITURE ORDER [319]New York Radio Service, Brooklyn, New York 06-18-2004 CITATION [320]English Sports Betting, Inc., Whitehall, PA, Montego Bay, Jamaica and Ballinasloe, Co.Galway 2, Ireland 06-17-2004 M.O.&O. [321]Georgia Transmission Corp., Tucker, Georgia 06-16-2004 M.O.&O. [322]Pamal Broadcasting Ltd., Latham, New York 06-16-2004 ORDER OF REVOCATION
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-03-4118A1.html
      • the Act.11 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''12 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')13 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,14 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. This would be the appropriate base forfeiture amount for a single importation or sale. In this case, Datel imported 15,000 units and sold 12,000 units. Given the number of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1000A1.html
      • See WBJY(FM) Response at 1-2; 1982 Policy Statement, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911, 26 (1982)(public broadcasters are prohibited from airing announcements promoting ``an entity or individual's goods or services where the broadcaster receives or reasonably anticipates the receipt of consideration from such individual or entity''). 15 1982 Policy Statement, 90 FCC 2d 895, 911-12, 26-29 (1982). 16 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80 (b)(4). 17 For purposes of the proceeding initiated by this Memorandum Opinion and Order, AFA shall be the only party to this proceeding. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1000A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1000A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1002A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alsbrooks.2 Mr. Alsbrooks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Billy Thomas Alsbrooks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1003A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Upson.2 Mr. Upson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 William Davon Upson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1016A1.html
      • within 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violations and ensure that they do not recur. Blountstown's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Blountstown Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for willfully violating Sections 11.35, 73.49 and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1017A1.html
      • Georgia Field Office (``Atlanta Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Brown Broadcasting.3 Brown Broadcasting has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Brown Broadcasting System, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1019A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1019A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1019A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1047A1.html
      • 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent violation, we find that WXDJ should be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation14 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find the base amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount.16
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1061A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1061A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1061A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1088A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Green.2 Mr. Green has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Jason T. Green IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1089A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Feldman.2 Mr. Feldman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Gary M. Feldman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1090A1.html
      • on the basis of financial hardship. 9 13. We have determined that Small Town's Motion should be granted and that its petition for reconsideration should be considered. We have examined Small Town's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,10 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,11 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Small Town willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1092A1.html
      • it has a history of overall compliance, that it had already planned to modify its organs to meet the Class B requirements before receiving the NAL, and that it stopped importing organs into the U.S. after receiving the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').11 In examining Johannus' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1105A1.html
      • to register the antenna structure. On October 17, 2002, B&H responded to the NAL. In its response, B&H contends that it had timely completed and submitted the tower registration paperwork to the Commission. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining B&H's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1107A1.html
      • conclude that Holladay did not willfully violate Section 17.50 of the Rules. Specifically, we find that the cables on the tower, although unpainted, did not compromise good visibility of the tower.3 Accordingly, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b)4 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4)5 of the Rules, the proposed $10,000 forfeiture issued to Holladay Broadcasting Company, Inc., NAL/Acct. No. 200332700003, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Holladay Broadcasting Co., Inc. DBA/WKSM, 225 NW Hollywood Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32859 and its counsel, Bart
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1108A1.html
      • and received by the Commission on November 12, 2002.4 Piedmont also submits the tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001, of its principal in support of its claim of an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Forfeiture Policy Statement).7 In examining Piedmont's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1142A1.html
      • Based on our review of Sedalia Smiles' response to the NAL and the overall record, we conclude that Sedalia Smiles did not willfully and/or repeatedly violate Section 17.51(b) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332560004, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Steven D. Semon and Jackie L. Semon dba Sedalia Smiles, 720 E. Fifth St., Sedalia, MO 65301. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1144A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1144A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1144A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-119A1.html
      • the antenna structure was not a willful. In addition, Meade asserts that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount at this time but is willing to enter into a payment plan. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Meade's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-120A1.html
      • was incorrectly installed on the wrong frequency and that this problem has been corrected. Citywide seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture and asserts that it has a history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Citywide's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-121A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Media's January 13, 2003, petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's Forfeiture Order issued on December 5, 2002, IS DISMISSED as untimely and the issuance of the $6,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.7 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1242A1.html
      • June 9, 2003.4 In its response, Petracom does not dispute the NAL findings. However, as discussed below, Petracom seeks cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture amount based upon its remedial efforts, history of compliance, and inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Petracom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1243A1.html
      • the NAL findings. Nevertheless, as detailed below, Clear Channel seeks cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, based on the fact that the Buffalo Office allegedly erred in inspecting the antenna structure, and that Clear Channel instituted prompt remedial action. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining Clear Channel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1256A1.html
      • the New York Office agents. New Eastern requested that if the Commission did not cancel the forfeiture, to consider reducing it. New Eastern provided profit and loss statements for 1999, 2000, and 2001. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining New Eastern's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1257A1.html
      • cancelled or substantially reduced.4 In support thereof, Crews submitted its tax returns from the years 2001, 2000 and 1999 and stated that it had never been cited for any violation of Commission rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crews response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1272A1.html
      • Needham's inability to pay claim and supporting documentation, we conclude that the assessed $10,000 forfeiture would pose a financial hardship. We therefore conclude that cancellation of the forfeiture is warranted based on the Needham's inability to pay.5 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 405, 503(b)(2)(d) and 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules, the Needham's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to William L. and Lucille Needham, 1090 Bluff Drive, Osage Beach, Missouri 65065. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1273A1.html
      • records confirm, that Accessory was dissolved on September 19, 2003, and its status was ``inactive.'' Given that the company has been dissolved, and that neither it nor its principals holds Commission authorizations, we believe that cancellation of the $20,000 Forfeiture Order is appropriate. Consistent with the discretion accorded to us under 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 10 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,11 as well as recent precedent,12 we therefore are canceling the $20,000 forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 405 and 504(b) of the Act13 and Sections 1.106 and 1.80(i) of the Rules,14 the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Accessory Connection, Inc. of the Bureau's February 6, 2003 Forfeiture Order for NAL/Acct. No. 200232700019 IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1286A1.html
      • as the circumstances, the nature and history of prior offenses, his degree of culpability as well as his inability to pay. He submitted no documentation substantiating an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Dorcely's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1290A1.html
      • On October 30, 2003, the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Pacifica.2 Pacifica has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Pacifica Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Section 73.1690 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1292A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1292A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1292A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1296A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1296A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1296A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1298A1.html
      • seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its unique role in its community, its commitment to continued remedial action and remedial actions taken so far and its claimed inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining MRJ's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1304A1.html
      • the fact that the record contains evidence only of limited routing failures in one state, we find that CenturyTel is apparently liable in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, CenturyTel, Inc., CenturyTel of Washington, Inc., CenturyTel of Cowiche, Inc., and CenturyTel of Inter Island, Inc. are hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Commission orders and section 52.26(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1306A1.html
      • maintained a nearly complete public file at 541 S. Main Street. In addition, Metropolitan argues that, if a forfeiture is imposed, the amount should be reduced because of the ``inconsequentiality'' of the offense. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Metropolitan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1332A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1332A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1332A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1333A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1333A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1333A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1350A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 8 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1350A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1350A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1351A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1351A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1351A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1383A1.html
      • the light was out and that it failed to notify the FAA of the outage.7 Wings' response included a recitation of its unsuccessful repair efforts as justification for its request for forfeiture cancellation. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Wings' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1389A1.html
      • the violations and its inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. Pilgrim filed a supplementary response on February 20, 2003, containing copies of its 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Pilgrim's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1390A1.html
      • the violations and its inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. Pilgrim filed a supplementary response on February 20, 2003, containing copies of its 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Pilgrim's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1392A1.html
      • that the station engineer does not work there full time and claims that the station is in the process of completing installation of another ground system and is addressing interference and transmitter problems. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Melodynamic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1401A1.html
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Louis.2 Mr. Louis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Mr. Rony Richard Louis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1402A1.html
      • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to L.A.C.A.2 L.A.C.A. has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 L.A.C.A., State of New York, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1403A1.html
      • trained to ensure that the EAS tests are properly logged. Additionally, Fayette County Broadcasting seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its prompt remedial action and its claimed inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Fayette County Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1406A1.html
      • response to the NAL.8 In its response, MBHD did not dispute the NAL's findings, but nevertheless sought cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount based on its remedial efforts and its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1411A1.html
      • Pennsylvania Field Office (``Philadelphia Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Best Wok.2 Best Wok has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Best Wok IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1442A1.html
      • prior offenses; and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. To support his inability to pay claim, Mr. Massett submitted copies of his 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Massett's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1447A1.html
      • those likely to qualify for the service or support. We find Pend Oreille apparently liable for $25,000. We also admonish the company for failing to respond in a timely and thorough manner to a Commission directive. 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 that Pend Oreille Telephone Company IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1)(B) and sections 54.405(b) and 54.411(d) of the Commission's rules 47 C.F.R 54.405(b), 54.411(d) as described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1452A1.html
      • harmed and that it promptly corrected the violation. BLCI also claims that it is financially unable to pay the forfeiture and that it has a history of compliance with Commission rules and regulations. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining BLCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1453A1.html
      • no reduction of the monetary forfeiture is warranted. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended7 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,8 Tri-County's Petition for Reconsideration, filed June 12, 2003, IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules9 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1471A1.html
      • justice may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,27 and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,28 that New Northwest Broadcasters, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, New
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1533A1.html
      • environment'' and implemented a ``common sense'' approach to RFR compliance which is consistent with OET Bulletin 654; and that, if it did violate Section 1.1310 of the Rules, the appropriate sanction is admonishment. III. Discussion 9. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Americom's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1576A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1576A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1576A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1577A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1577A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1577A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1578A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1578A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1578A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1580A1.html
      • the immediate measures it took to correct the violations noted in the NAL, as well as an inability to pay any forfeiture at all. The response is accompanied by one partial-year financial statement. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').7 In examining Greenwood's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1590A1.html
      • did not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, Ad-Venture sought a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay, its unblemished history of compliance, and its prompt remedial efforts. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1600A1.html
      • December 3, 2002 were inconsistent with UTI's subsequent inspection of the antenna structure.5 PCI notes that it promptly contacted the FAA of this outage. Accordingly, PCI asserts that the violations were not ``willful.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1610A1.html
      • findings of the NAL, that it willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Rather, the licensee seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Floyd County Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1619A1.html
      • to the Enforcement Bureau within 30 days of the release of this Order confirming that it has repaired the lighting outage. Vector's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration signed by an officer or director of Vector.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,6 Vector Communications, Inc. d/b/a WCFI, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1620A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to WBLB.2 WBLB has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 WBLB, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for repeatedly violating Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1621A1.html
      • New York Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Parkway.2 Parkway has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules),4 Parkway Luxury Ride, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1629A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1629A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1629A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1631A1.html
      • no prior record of violation with the Commission. Finally, the licensee claimed it is a small station and submitted tax returns for the years 1999-2002, in support of its inability to pay claim. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Fun Media Group's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1633A1.html
      • prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 4 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1633A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1633A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1670A1.html
      • are now complete, that only a ``handful'' of files were missing, and that no actual harm was done because no one requested to view the public inspection file during the time in question. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').7 In examining TWEAN's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the alleged violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1687A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1687A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1687A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1691A1.html
      • equipment for Station KCAF(AM) was being monitored and tested from its Dallas studio. Finally, Renaissance Radio states that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, as it is a debtor in possession. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Renaissance Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1693A1.html
      • must be submitted in the form of a sworn declaration. If Clay fails to submit such a report indicating that he has ceased operation, we will consider further appropriate enforcement action, including potential revocation of his amateur radio license. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 Mark A. Clay IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 5. IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant Section 308(b) of the Act, Mr. Clay must submit the report described in Paragraph 3, above, within 30 days from the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1710A1.html
      • an oversight during the transfer of property, the registered owner of the tower was not changed at closing.'' However, Pamal sought a reduction of the forfeiture amount based upon its history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1714A1.html
      • overall record, we conclude that, because the tower was not required to be registered by Georgia Transmission Corp., Georgia Transmission did not willfully and/or repeatedly violate Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332480009, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Georgia Transmission Corp., 2100 E. Exchange Place, Tucker, Georgia 30084. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1720A1.html
      • Finally, NYRS argues that its violation is not as egregious as unlicensed ``pirate'' operation, that its unauthorized operation did not cause any harmful interference and that it has a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining NYRS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1732A1.html
      • to take the measurements. In addition, Radio 810 argues that the Forfeiture Order is procedurally defective because it was mailed to the company's former address and was addressed to Radio 810's previous corporate name. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Radio 810's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1750A1.html
      • located had numerous openings with no fencing, affording unrestricted access to the tower. In addition, there was no fence at the base of the tower. The tower had radio frequency potential at the base. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Forrester's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1751A1.html
      • measurements, the agent calculated the system's cumulative leakage index (``CLI'') at a value of 68.7, exceeding the allowed cumulative signal leakage performance criteria of 64, in violation of Section 76.611(a)(1) of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining STC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1752A1.html
      • the NAL, we conclude that, contrary to the contemporaneous statements made by WGUL-FM employees at the time of the inspection, WGUL-FM is not the owner of antenna structure #1027884. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed against WGUL-FM. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432700012, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to WGUL-FM, Inc., 35048 US Highway 19, North, Palm Harbor, FL 34684 and James A. Koerner, Counsel for WGUL-FM, Inc., 5809
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1760A1.html
      • not dispute the NAL's findings regarding power excesses and EAS deficiencies, but claimed that they were due to unusual circumstances and further claimed that it was unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amounts. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining M.J. Phillips' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires us to take into account the violations' nature, circumstances, extent and gravity, and the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1770A1.html
      • it hired a firm to erect interior fencing around the base of each tower. Finally, it argues the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its overall history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Metro Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1847A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1847A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1847A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-1868A1.html
      • regular inspection of the tower and the fact that the problem occurred shortly after an inspection by Mega, we conclude that Mega did not willfully violate Section 73.49 of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332260003, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Mega Communications of New Britain, Licensee, L.L.C., 8121 Georgia Avenue, 10th floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 and to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2003A1.html
      • citing an inability to pay. In support, Pilgrim described losses from a prior burglary and submitted its tax returns from 1998-2001. Pilgrim also described remedial measures undertaken as further justification for forfeiture cancellation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Pilgrim's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2005A1.html
      • that the size of the forfeiture is disproportionate to the size of station. The response is accompanied by an exhibit entitled ``Deposit Detail'' along with a copy of an arbitration decision concerning Meeker. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Meeker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2011A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2011A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2011A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2013A1.html
      • the proposed forfeiture based the fact that it has a history pf compliance with the Commission's rules. The response is accompanied by a copy of its October 31, 2002 response to the NOV. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Simmons' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2020A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2020A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2020A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2021A1.html
      • 2003. In his response, Mr. DeNaples conceded that he operated on frequency 154.515 MHz, but argued that he applied for and was issued a license for that frequency more than thirty years ago.5 III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Dominic DeNaples' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2023A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2023A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2023A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2040A1.html
      • an order for a new inner base fence it placed almost a week before the agents' inspection. Finally, PCI claims it is unable to pay the $7,000 forfeiture and submitted supporting financial documentation. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2041A1.html
      • Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Mayo.2 Mr. Mayo has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 Stanley Mark Mayo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2042A1.html
      • Field Office (``Los Angeles Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $11,000 to Mr. Granda.2 Mr. Granda has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Daniel Granda IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $11,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 308(b) and 333 of the Act and Sections 97.101(b) and 97.101(d) of the Rules . 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2043A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $2,000 to Sunbelt.2 Sunbelt has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Sunbelt Television, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for repeatedly violating Section 11.35(a) and 11.61(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2082A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2082A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2082A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2159A1.html
      • come into compliance with the Commission's rules. Finally, FNX claims that it has experienced net operating losses at station WPHX(AM) and that imposition of the proposed forfeiture will not serve the public interest. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining FNX's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2160A1.html
      • into compliance with the Commission's rules. Finally, FNX claims that it has experienced substantial net operating losses at station WPHX-FM and that imposition of the proposed forfeiture will not serve the public interest. II. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining FNX's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2162A1.html
      • with previous actions. Finally, Chladek argues that it has never been cited for an infraction of the Rules and this factor should have been taken into account with the issuance of the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Chladek's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2188A1.html
      • Tennessee again avers its good faith belief that the May 11 notification, assignment of license application and subsequently filed ownership report adequately alerted the Commission to the change in ownership of the antenna structure. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,9 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In examining East Tennessee's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2259A1.html
      • with the U.S.-Mexico treaty and that the Mexican station was causing harmful interference to licensed U.S. broadcast stations.34 Accordingly, based upon the record before us, we find that PSN supplied cross-border programming to Station XEKTT in apparent willful35 and repeated36 violation of the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) authorization. 13. Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act,37 and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Rules,38 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of a Commission issued permit, license or other authorization shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The forfeiture amount for entities other than broadcast licensees or permittees, cable television operators and common carriers may not exceed $11,000 for each violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2260A1.html
      • an inability to pay the forfeiture. Barnacle, however, submitted only a Balance Sheet, Mortgage Note and Income Statement for 2002 created by the President of Barnacle as documentation in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Barnacle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2264A1.html
      • it is a small business entity, in support of its request that the forfeiture be reduced, without providing any financial documentation. It is well established that reliance on small business status alone without substantiation of the inability to pay claim is insufficient.4 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act5, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules6, Pacifica Foundation, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for its willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.61(a)(1)(i), 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2265A1.html
      • monitors the lights and sends an alarm using cell radio technology. Additionally, Business Cell states that if an alarm system failed to check in once every 24 hours it would be notified. III. DISCUSSION 8. 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Business Cell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2316A1.html
      • FAA two years to conduct a new aeronautical study and that it has been waiting on a response from the Commission to its July 20, 1999 filing of an antenna structure registration application. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Clamor's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2330A1.html
      • through its General Counsel, Mr. Vaughn, in his letter of November 21, 2003. Out of nine categories of information and documents the Enforcement Bureau's letter dated November 13, 2003 directed AFA to provide, Mr. Vaughn responded to two while offering no explanation for not responding to the other categories.28 C. Proposed Action 13. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.29 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule.30 The Forfeiture Policy Statement sets forth a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2334A1.html
      • claim, Servisair submits financial documentation for 2000 and 2001.4 Servisair also noted that neither itself, its parent company nor its sister companies have previously been found in violation of Commission rules or regulations. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Servisair's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2338A1.html
      • engineer to submit its STL application and that it would receive a license in due course. Arnold admitted that it ``did not think about the matter again'' until the Denver Office agent's inspection. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Arnold's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2343A1.html
      • did not receive any financial benefit from the operation of the station; that the ``owner and operator'' of the station is ``free of charge''; and that he cannot pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Desinor's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2346A1.html
      • Arizona State and Penn State. Finally, Johnson argues the forfeiture should be reduced or canceled because it does not have a prior history of violations and is unable to pay the proposed amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Johnson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-236A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-236A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-236A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2387A1.html
      • Cornell states the forfeiture would constitute an extreme financial hardship, given the school's overall financial condition and the fact that the proposed forfeiture exceeds the station's annual budget for the 2003-2004 school year. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Cornell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2388A1.html
      • stays and interfered with Mr. Andrews' ability to oversee the operations and maintenance of the tower. Finally, Andrews Tower states that the proposed forfeiture is its first fine or violation from the Commission III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Andrews Tower's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2391A1.html
      • Broadcasters Association and the author of the EAS guidelines for Arkansas Broadcasters. Finally, Pearson requests relief from the forfeiture due to inability to pay, and provides financial information in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Pearson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-240A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-240A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-240A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2441A1.html
      • Casey has presented financial information only with respect to this station and not his company overall,6 and has not provided any supporting documentation, we are not in a position to make a downward adjustment based on inability to pay.7 III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 Casey Network, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules9 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2459A1.html
      • cancellation of the forfeiture, implying that it cannot afford to pay the proposed $10,000 forfeiture. Finally, it supplements its response stating that it will paint the tower on or about April 15, 2003. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Wanda Doonan Trust's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2466A1.html
      • monetary forfeiture. CB contends that it attempted to register WBEJ's antenna structure but was not successful until February 14, 2003,3 and that its failure to timely register WPEJ's antenna structure was not willful. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').6 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining CB's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2470A1.html
      • reducing the proposed forfeiture, we admonish Sauer for his deliberate, willful and repeated violations of the Part 97 of the Rules governing amateur radio operations, and caution Sauer that further violations may result in additional enforcement measures, including revocation of his license.4 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Ronald E. Sauer IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four hundred dollars ($400) for its deliberate, willful and repeated violations of Sections 97.101(d), 97.113(a)(4) and 97.119(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2473A1.html
      • that it violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules and disputing the fencing violation. Pittman also seeks a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount based on a past history of compliance and financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement.7 In examining Pittman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.8
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2479A1.html
      • forfeiture in the amount of $17,000 to Williams. Williams does not contest the subject violations. Williams filed a response to the NAL on May 16, 2003, and supplemented his response on July 21 and 23, 2004. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-247A1.html
      • a response on August 1, 2003. In its response, RJM does not challenge the findings of the NAL. Rather, RJM seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining RJM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2482A1.html
      • Jackson further characterized his operation of the station as a ``public service,'' and claimed that he never received financial gain from its operation as additional justification for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Donald Jackson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2486A1.html
      • circumstances and was not willful. Additionally, Entravision claims that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because of its ``good faith efforts to bring the station into compliance'' and history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Entravision's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2488A1.html
      • the November 27, 2002 Warning Letter and immediately shut down the operation upon notice of violation, and his inability to pay. He submitted no documentation substantiating an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) ``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Selvanto's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2489A1.html
      • such alternatives are too costly and time-consuming. Moreover, Mr. Simon alleges that the Commission's licensing rules violate the First Amendment and that the Commission seized equipment in Mr. Simon's home pursuant to an illegal and unlawful search and seizure. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Simon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2494A1.html
      • on May 20, 2003. In its response, FTP does not contest the violation. FTP seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based upon its post-inspection mitigation efforts, inability to pay, and its history of overall compliance. II. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining FTP's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2497A1.html
      • 2003 requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, alleging that the agents' inspection of the antenna structure site was improper, and stating that it instituted prompt remedial action to correct the noted violations. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Capstar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-24A1.html
      • it, by a communications company to solve a problem Acapulco was having with background noise from drivers. Finally, Acapulco states that it has programmed its equipment to operate only on its licensed frequency. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Acapulco's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2515A1.html
      • small, independent broadcaster'' and that the Commission ``should not discourage companies like 4M whose successful efforts to save troubled AM stations and bring new programming choices to listeners have served the public interest.'' III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining the 4M companies' response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2517A1.html
      • justify rescinding the forfeiture. And, as noted above, this is not the first Infinity violation of our telephone broadcast rule. We therefore reject Infinity's arguments that imposing a forfeiture in this instance would constitute impermissible disparate treatment. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,18 Infinity Radio Operations, Inc., shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2518A1.html
      • Based on our review of Gulf Stream's response to the NAL, including its good faith efforts to comply prior to being informed of the FCC inspection and its history of overall compliance, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200232700025, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and by First Class Mail to Gulf Stream Natural Gas System, Attention, P. Martin Teague, Associate General Counsel, 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Houston, TX 77612
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2530A1.html
      • caused by the Model TM60's non-compliance mitigate the failure of the device to comply with Commission Rules.20 Further, while we commend IKUSI's commitment to comply with the Commission's rules in the future, such post-remedial measure does not lessen, mitigate, or excuse IKUSI's violations. 21 Indeed, corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission Rules is expected. 22 10. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for importing and marketing non-compliant equipment. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that the base forfeiture amounts shall be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, such as ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2536A1.html
      • which showed that Tennessee Gas had registered its tower and installed strobe lights, we conclude that Tennessee Gas did not willfully and repeatedly violate Sections 17.4(a) and 17.50 of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332280007, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 1001 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2538A1.html
      • with a copy of the NOV attached. The Columbia Office received a postal receipt proving delivery of the letter on January 25, 2003, but did not receive a reply to the January 17 letter. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining JMK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-253A1.html
      • claiming that that it did not willfully violate the antenna fencing requirements of Section 73.49, that it had years of broadcasting experience, and that it was a ``small daytime radio station operating out of a very humble mobile home.'' III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining WCVC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2543A1.html
      • 3 (rel. March 22, 1985) (Field Operations Bureau properly denied respondent the name of complainants who had written letter to assist Commission in ``effecting its duty to maintain and assure the proper use of the electromagnetic spectrum,'' despite respondent's desire to pursue civil remedies for alleged defamatory qualities of letter). 13 See NAL Response at 3- 4 (citing 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4)). 14 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2543A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2543A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2553A1.html
      • requisite two sources. On March 31, 2003, the San Diego Office issued a NAL for $15,000 to Playa del Sol for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35, 11.61, and 73.1125 of the Rules. II. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Playa del Sol's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2554A1.html
      • support of his inability to pay contention. We have reviewed the financial information submitted by Mr. Neely and find that this information does not provide a basis for cancellation. Indeed, the forfeiture is a very small percentage of Rejoice, Inc.'s gross revenues.5 4`. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act6, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,7 Frank Neely IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for his repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2853A1.html
      • pay.8 Therefore, we again decline to cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture on the basis of inability to pay. 9. We have considered the forfeiture amount and we have examined Mr. O'Quinn's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,9 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,10 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Mr. O'Quinn willfully violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate.11 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act12 and Section 1.106
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2854A1.html
      • the antenna structure, that it repainted the tower promptly after the Commission notice and before the NAL was issued, and that its failure to repaint the tower before Commission notice was not willful.3 III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Leon's Radio's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2864A1.html
      • the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act,13 and Section 1.106 of the Rules, 14 the petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED and the issuance of the $10,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 19. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.15 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2874A1.html
      • documentation, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $8,000 forfeiture is warranted based on the company's inability to pay.4 While we cancel the forfeiture, we admonish Rainbow for its repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the proposed forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars ($8,000.00) for apparent repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rainbow Honolulu IS ADMONISHED for its repeated violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2877A1.html
      • towers and an engineering firm to submit the necessary studies to the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'') to obtain a no hazard determination. Williams asserts it will immediately register the three towers after it receives an FAA no hazard determination. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Williams's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2879A1.html
      • Mobile's inability to pay. We do find, however that St. Louis Mobile should be admonished for its repeated violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 5. We have examined St. Louis Mobile's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,4 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,5 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that St. Louis Mobile's petition for reconsideration should be granted, the monetary forfeiture against St. Louis Mobile should be cancelled and St. Louis Mobile should be admonished for its repeated violations of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2881A1.html
      • that the violation was willful or repeated. Finally, Palmetto discusses its poor financial situation and provides copies of its 2000, 2001, and 2002 tax returns, presumably to demonstrate its inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Palmetto's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2886A1.html
      • approximately October 31, 2003. Cell Page still has not submitted its tax returns.3 Without the appropriate financial documentation, we can not consider Cell Page's claim of inability to pay;4 therefore, we deny its request for reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. 5 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act6, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,7 Cell Page IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for its willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2887A1.html
      • withdrawal will be processed by WTB concurrently with this Order. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act5 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,6 Mr. Kamm's petition for reconsideration of the June 6, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 the forfeiture in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) assessed in the Forfeiture Order issued to Scott E. Kamm IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Scott E. Kamm at his address of record. FEDERAL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2888A1.html
      • 2003 response to the NAL, including its statement that it is not the operator of the unlicensed radio transmitter. Based on our review of its response and the record before us, we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $10,000 forfeiture is warranted. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the April 23, 2003 NAL issued to Hip Hop City Corp. IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Hip Hop City, 1236 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11216.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2890A1.html
      • ``the Norfolk Office improperly used ESI's good faith and voluntary disclosures of prior improper programming by a service representative as a basis to refuse rather than allow any reduction of the base forfeiture.'' III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining ESI's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2891A1.html
      • proposed monetary forfeiture. WFNO argues that it has a history of overall compliance, made voluntary disclosures, made good faith efforts to come into compliance and was cooperative during and after the inspection. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining WFNO's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2903A1.html
      • WSJM was only monitoring one EAS source because an antenna from one of its EAS monitors had become dislodged; and 4) the station has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules. I. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining WSJM's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2904A1.html
      • 21, 2003. Mr. Simon admits that his vehicle was parked in the driveway of the residence on that date, but claims that his wife and ``her friend'' were using his vehicle that day. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Simon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2910A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2910A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2910A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2971A1.html
      • nevertheless sought cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture based upon its good faith efforts to comply with the subject registration requirements, after the Dallas Office notified Ramsey of the lack of registration. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2981A1.html
      • home from a trip and received the Bureau's letter. He stated that he would file his written response to the letter the next week. More than three months later, however, Mr. Goodman still has not responded or provided the information or documents required by the Bureau's letter of inquiry. III. DISCUSSION 3. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.7 In order to impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2989A1.html
      • engaged a contractor to coordinate reports and register the antenna structure more than a year prior to the Commission's on-site inspection.5 Under the circumstances, we believe a reduction of the $3,000 base forfeiture for that violation to $1,000 is warranted.6 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 503(a) and (b) of the Act,7 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 Southern Media Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nine thousand dollars ($9,000) for its willful violation of the EAS and antenna registration requirements set forth in Sections 17.4(a) and 11.35(a) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2992A1.html
      • 31, 2003, Mr. Taylor filed with the Commission an application for a change in ownership of the subject antenna structure, which was granted that same day.3 Mr. Taylor is no longer a Commission licensee. 3. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and in accordance with the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act4 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that cancellation of the forfeiture amount of $10,000 is warranted.6 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $10,000 forfeiture issued to Robert B. Taylor IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3017A1.html
      • 106.9 MHz.6 Global characterized its operation on the additional channels as an experiment intended to ``explore the role of Part 15'' and ``provide the FCC with reliable data'' as further justification for cancellation. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Global's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3019A1.html
      • adjusted from $4,000 to $8,000. On March 20, 2003, Union filed a Response seeking a decrease in the forfeiture amount, alleging that it has taken remedial actions to comply with the referenced Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Union's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3022A1.html
      • requests cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture on the basis of financial hardship and submits copies of its 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 federal income tax returns in support of its request. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining EICB's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3025A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3025A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3025A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3026A1.html
      • FCC Account ID No. 0441724048 For C Block Facilities in the ) FRN No. 0007043409 710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2004 Released: September 22, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Star Wireless, LLC (``Star'') engaged in collusive conduct during a Commission-conducted auction in 2002, in willful and repeated violation of section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules.2 Based on the information before us, we conclude that Star is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). II. BACKGROUND 2.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3027A1.html
      • Account ID No. 0442010372 ) FRN No. 0002706190 For C Block Facilities in the ) 710-716 and 740-746 MHz Bands ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2004 Released: September 22, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Northeast Communications of Wisconsin, Inc. (``Northeast'') engaged in collusive conduct during a Commission-conducted auction in 2002, in willful violation of section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules.2 Based on the information before us, we conclude that Northeast is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). II. BACKGROUND 2.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3042A1.html
      • inability to pay claim was denied. The Order concluded that Radio X willfully violated Sections 17.50 and 73.3526(b) of the Rules and that neither cancellation nor reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture was warranted. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,5 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Radio X's Petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3106A1.html
      • a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith and prompt remedial efforts, the nature and circumstances of the violations, and its record of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mercury's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3107A1.html
      • equipment for the system until March 12, 2003. Mediacom stated that the equipment was installed by March 17, 2003, and Mediacom promptly repaired the outage after learning about it from the field inspector. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mediacom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3149A1.html
      • was damaged after February 7, 2004 such damage was most likely the result of vandalism. Finally, he argues the forfeiture should be reduced based on the station's long-time record of compliance with the Rules and the station's financial situation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Delta's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3150A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $18,000 to TPN.2 TPN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 The Paradise Network of North Carolina, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35 and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3153A1.html
      • reduction in the forfeiture amount.3 We concur, however, with Urban Radio's assertion that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled in light of its overall history of compliance with the Rules.4 Accordingly we reduce the forfeiture amount to $12,000. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Urban Radio of Pennsylvania, L.L.C., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.47(a), 17.48(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3154A1.html
      • number for the individual to contact him. Mr. Pierre provided no information as to the identity, whereabouts or telephone number for ``Jean Louis'' and stated merely that he was refuting the allegations and wanted the matter ``put to rest.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Pierre's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3157A1.html
      • response, Butterfield seeks cancellation of the forfeiture because it was ``in the process of dealing with the problem and it has since been resolved,'' and because it is unable to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').8 In examining Butterfield's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the alleged violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3158A1.html
      • 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 FBS Wireless Corporation's petition for reconsideration, filed November 21, 2003, IS DENIED and the issuance of the $20,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3183A1.html
      • radio bands given his valid amateur license; and that any possible suspension of his license is also pending a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, making the NAL moot until the suspension occurs. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),17 Section 1.80 of the Rules,18 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').19 In examining Gerritsen's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3189A1.html
      • November 2002 and November 2003 and the model EPIA-CL CPU board between August/September 2003 and November 2003. Therefore, although we find that some of VIA's apparent violations occurred outside the one-year statute of limitations, we propose forfeitures here only for the violations which occurred within the last year. 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines24 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,25 the base forfeiture amount for importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. In this case, VIA imported and marketed two unauthorized models of CPU boards. We find that a forfeiture amount of $7,000 is warranted for each unauthorized model.26 Accordingly, we are proposing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-318A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-318A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-318A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3199A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Konarz.2 Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 11.35(a), 73.1745(a), and 73.3526(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3205A1.html
      • owed by Station WB0TPF, argues that Station WB0TPF should not be assessed a fine for putting up an antenna that benefits the community, and asks that the forfeiture be cancelled. Northern states that it will register the tower. III. DISCUSSION 8. The NAL assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Northern's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3239A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3239A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3239A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3240A1.html
      • a response to the NAL. In that response, Capital Media admits that its EAS receiver did not receive the tests in question, but urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount.3 III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Capital Media's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3244A1.html
      • claim because, in fact, the Enforcement Bureau has found various Saga affiliates in violation of the Commission's rules in numerous cases in the past four years.17 We therefore decline to reduce the forfeiture amount on these grounds. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,18 Saga Communications of New England, LLC, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of $4,000 for willfully violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3245A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3245A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3245A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3246A1.html
      • pay. Based on our review of the financial information provided by Business Cell, we conclude that an eight thousand dollar ($8,000) forfeiture would impose a financial hardship on the licensee. Therefore, we reduce the forfeiture to one thousand dollars ($1,000). 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Sections 1.80(i) and 1.106 of the Rules,2 Business Cell's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED, and the $8,000 forfeiture is reduced to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for Business Cell's willful and repeated violation of Section 17.51(b) of the Rules. 3. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules3 within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3248A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3248A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3248A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3249A1.html
      • 20, 2004. In its response, VPM did not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, VPM sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inadvertence, remedial efforts, inability to pay, and history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3250A1.html
      • services ``in a manner reasonably designed to reach those who qualify'' for those services. However, as discussed above, Pend Oreille has shown mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty to $20,000. 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) that Pend Oreille shall forfeit to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1)(B), and Sections 54.405(b) and 54.411(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 54.405(b), 54.411(d) as discussed in the paragraphs above. 14. Payment of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3258A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''23 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.24 However, we think that a substantial proposed forfeiture for this violation is warranted. Violation of the E911 rules is extremely serious because these rules are intended to promote safety of life.25 Further, the Phase I requirements set forth in Section 20.18(d) have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3263A1.html
      • Crown states that during the period between the antenna structure inspection and issuance of the NAL, Crown painted the antenna structure, including the cables, prior to receiving notice of the violation from the Commission. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3264A1.html
      • NAL (``response'') wherein it challenged only the public inspection file violation and sought a reduction or cancellation in the proposed forfeiture because of an inability to pay and history of no prior offenses. II. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Paulino's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3267A1.html
      • to a licensed U.S. broadcast station. Based on the record before us, we thus find that, by delivering cross-border programming to Station XEMO, Uniradio undermined one of the primary objectives of Section 325 of the Act and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit. 8. Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act,26 and Section 1.80(a)(2) of the Rules,27 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of a Commission issued permit, license or other authorization shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The forfeiture amount for entities other than broadcast licensees or permittees, cable television operators and common carriers may not exceed $11,000 for each violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3273A1.html
      • Woodland requested a reduction of the forfeiture amount because it imposes an economic burden on the licensee. Woodland enclosed its tax returns from 2001 to 2003 in support of its economic burden claim. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Woodland's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3277A1.html
      • which showed that Redwood did not own the tower at the time the NAL was issued, we find that Redwood did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. Thus, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432960001, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by First Class Mail to Redwood Family Services, Inc., P. O. Box 180, Tahoma, California 96142, and its counsel Dennis J. Kelly, Esquire,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3286A1.html
      • not dispute the NAL's findings. Rather, Big Island sought a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts, its unblemished history of compliance and its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3302A1.html
      • files in accordance with Section 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules. Finally, Ross states that a new EAS Encoder/Decoder has been ordered and will be installed, made operational, and proper logs kept of its use. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Ross' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3305A1.html
      • AAT argues that no painting could be done at the time of inspection because of winter weather, even if it had been aware that the paint had faded to the point of violation. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AAT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3317A1.html
      • the Commission cited it for not having, and urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount based on its compliance history, its small market size and in the interest of justice. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').5 In examining Crystal Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3318A1.html
      • Commission's Detroit, Michigan Field Office (``Detroit Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Paladen.3 Paladen has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3328A1.html
      • that the agents trespassed on his private property without a warrant and refused to leave his property when requested. Finally, he argues that there is no evidence that he operated the radio equipment in alleged violation of the Act. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').6 In examining Mr. Dean's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-332A1.html
      • previously controlled by Arbros, we decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture amount. We conclude that the proposed forfeiture, $50,000, is reasonable based on all the evidence in the record, including the most recent gross revenue information Arbros submitted.17 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,18 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,19 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,20 Arbros Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 214 of the Act and Sections 63.61, 63.71, and 63.505 of the Commission's rules by discontinuing its domestic interstate access service
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3345A1.html
      • notification by Commission agents on June 23, 2003; 2) its site personnel did not intend to violate the Rules; and 3) Forest did not authorize its personnel to operate on frequency 473.175 MHz. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Forest's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3348A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 11 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 12 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3348A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3348A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3355A1.html
      • his inability to pay the proposed monetary forfeiture. 5. In a telephone conversation with Bureau counsel on June 29, 2004, Mr. Martin stated that antenna structure number 1220001 was painted during April 2003. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (``Policy Statement'').6 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Martin's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-337A1.html
      • basis for cancellation or reduction of the $10,000 monetary forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act9 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,10 AAT's petition for reconsideration of the February 4, 2003, Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules11 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.12 Payment shall be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-340A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-340A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-340A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3417A1.html
      • with that responsibility has been disciplined and that the file has since been updated to include the lists. Finally, in support, Lebanon submitted copies of its contour map, manual and updated issues/program lists. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-348A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 6 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-348A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-348A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3504A1.html
      • continued operation of the station was in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. After reviewing Mr. Oaks's response, we find that he ``willfully''6 and ``repeatedly''7 violated Section 301 of the Act. In addition, we conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,9 that no reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act10 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,11 Michael David Oaks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3505A1.html
      • send the Commission a copy of his credit report which would show his inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. To date, the Commission has not received a copy of Mr. Brown's credit report. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case has been assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,8 (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Brown's petition take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3516A1.html
      • the Enforcement Bureau's inquiry in seven of the nine categories of information sought.25 Thus, we find no basis for reducing or eliminating the proposed $3,000 forfeiture for failing to comply with a Bureau order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, American Family Association IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's main studio rule and for willfully failing to comply with a Bureau order. 11. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3547A1.html
      • He seeks cancellation or a drastic reduction of the forfeiture amount. In support of his claim of inability to pay the forfeiture amount, he submits certain financial information for the years 2000 - 2002. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').8 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Autry's petition, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3548A1.html
      • urges the Commission to rescind or reduce the forfeiture amount based on the fact that it used its best efforts to make the appropriate changes to the EAS equipment to make it operational. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').7 In examining Desert's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3549A1.html
      • we need not address whether the violation was willful.4 We concur, however, with Louisa's assertion that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its inability to pay. Accordingly, we reduce the forfeiture amount to two thousand dollars ($2,000). III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 Louisa Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for repeatedly violating Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3550A1.html
      • small market of Paris, Texas, and the Commission has recognized that forfeitures impose a ``far greater hardship'' on a small market station than on others, citing Dominga Barreto Santiago6 and Canby Telephone Association.7 III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining East Texas' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3551A1.html
      • test a new coverage area that was intended to reduce the possibility of co- channel interference. Therefore, Horizon argues, the move was not a ``conscious and deliberate'' attempt to violate the Communications Act. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Horizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3552A1.html
      • North Country also argues that it painted the tower as required when it was initially constructed and registered with the FAA. It does not comment on its failure to post the registration number. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining North Country's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3558A1.html
      • folder; and Community has no history of violation of the Commission's Rules. In further support of a reduction or cancellation of its forfeiture, Community cited a series of Enforcement Bureau cases.6 III. DISCUSSION 5. The District Director assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendments of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').9 In examining Community's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3559A1.html
      • Inc.5 (``Tidewater) in support, Aquila submits its lack of intent to violate the rules, its immediate corrective actions, the lack of public harm, its tower compliance program and its long history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Aquila's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3572A1.html
      • submitted its 2000 tax return and several unsigned ``balance sheets'' and a letter from its current manager regarding its current financial condition. Consequently, Portland Taxicab requests a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Portland Taxicab's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-358A1.html
      • been delivered. Mrs. Ortiz asserts that she made a good faith effort to comply with the EAS rule and should not be penalized for the equipment vendor's inability to make timely delivery. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Aracelis Ortiz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3593A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3593A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3593A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3594A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Beacon.2 Beacon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Beacon Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3597A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3597A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3597A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3608A1.html
      • to pay the forfeiture. Lastly, Mr. Estrada asserts that Private Land Mobile Station WSM 534, Chesapeake Bay Contractors, Inc.4 supports elimination of the forfeiture amount as the violation should not be considered repeated. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 7 (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Estrada's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3655A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3655A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3655A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3656A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3656A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3656A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3675A1.html
      • the monetary forfeiture. Mr. Avena also claims that he ceased operating the station on December 20, 2004 and therefore takes issue with the findings in the NAL regarding the station's operation on January 6, 2004 and January 17, 2004. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Avena's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3683A1.html
      • of the Commission's rules. In light of this apparent misconduct, we find that Mid-Missouri apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation14 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) and 1.80(a)(4), which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 As noted above, Mid-Missouri states that it ``believes this was an isolated incident and it is taking the necessary steps to prevent an incident like
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3793A1.html
      • and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the five unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Elf Painting and Wallpapering is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3799A1.html
      • factors warranting reduction of a forfeiture.5 As a result of our review, we conclude that Exosphere willfully6 and repeatedly7 violated Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules. We affirm that a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 is appropriate. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,8 Exosphere Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.50 and 17.51 of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3802A1.html
      • Gordon claims, it ``is not true that on April 9, 2003 I was still violating ... [Section] 90.403 (a)(2) of the [C]ommission's rules.'' Mr. Gordon offers no other defense or basis for mitigation. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').5 In examining Mr. Gordon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3803A1.html
      • the Commission should have notified it of the tower's condition when the Commission first discovered the violation on October 29, 2002 so Crown Castle could have remedied the violation and avoided a repeated violation. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Red 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown Castle's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3805A1.html
      • was corrected upon being informed of the outage, and that the lighting failure resulted from vandalism. Lastly, Mr. Saunders requests cancellation of the forfeiture asserting an inability to pay the forfeiture. 10. III. DISCUSSION 11. 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Saunders's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3819A1.html
      • AGL. In addition, WLTH contends that hunters caused the lighting outage by shooting out the antenna structure lights. Finally, WLTH claims that it notified the FAA of the outage on March 5, 2003. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').8 Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining WLTH's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3824A1.html
      • but claims that he was not operating the station at the time of the second inspection. In conclusion, he stated ``I promise you that this kind of behavior will never take place anymore.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case has been assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,5 (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Mr. Louis' petition take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3829A1.html
      • of the Rules. In its response to the NAL, Twenty-One seeks cancellation of the forfeiture based on it having a meaningful managerial presence, its history of compliance, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. I. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Twenty-One's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3831A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3831A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3831A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3832A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3832A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3832A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3834A1.html
      • 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders by delivering at least four unsolicited, prerecorded advertisement messages as identified above. We have further determined that WCG is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $23,500. 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and under the authority delegated by section 0.11 and 0.311 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.11, 0.311, that WCG, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $23,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3838A1.html
      • conclude because the announcements seek impermissibly to distinguish favorably their underwriters from competitors by directly stating or implying that they offer superior service or products, and the announcements, in many instances, also invite or urge business patronage. Moreover, the announcements were aired over a substantial period of timefifteen months.19 B. Proposed Action 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.20 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.21 The Forfeiture Policy Statement sets forth a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3850A1.html
      • malfunctioned during the Norfolk Office's March 2003 and February 2004 inspections. However, WBLB sought cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture based on its corrective actions, overall history of compliance and inability to pay. III. DISCUSSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining WBLB's petition, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires us to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3852A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $3,000 to Shadavrus.2 Shadavrus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Shadavrus Capital Trust, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3860A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the referenced Rule violation.2 Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act3, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Metropolitan Radio Group, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3862A1.html
      • test operations after installing a replacement antenna for station KXPW-LP. Power Radio asserted that due to a misunderstanding with its engineering consultant, it was not aware that it was required to file anything with the FCC. However, licensees are expected to know and comply with the FCC's rules.7 6. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3866A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3866A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3866A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-386A1.html
      • EB-01-IH-0121 ) NAL/Acct. No. 200232080014 Licensee of Station WKQX(FM), ) FRN 0001529346 Chicago, Illinois ) Facility ID # 19525 ) ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 17, 2004 Released: February 18, 2004 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order, issued pursuant to section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we impose a monetary forfeiture of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) on Emmis FM License Corporation (``Emmis''), licensee of Station WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois, for the willful broadcast of indecent material over the station during its March 12, 2001, broadcast of the ``Mancow's Morning Madhouse'' (``Mancow'') program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. II.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-387A1.html
      • December 2, 2002, IS HEREBY DENIED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The payment MUST INCLUDE the FCC Registration Number (FRN)(0001529346) referenced above, and also should note the NAL/Acct. No. (200232080008). If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 504(a). 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-389A1.html
      • practices (``GAAP''); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects WCSS's current financial status. WCSS has not submitted such documentation and, therefore, cannot persuasively claim that it does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,22 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,23 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,24 that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violating a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau to provide certain information and documents. 13. Payment
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3904A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d) 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3904A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3904A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-390A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 61995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-390A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-390A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3912A1.html
      • and that for the last ten years the translator has been used to broadcast public interest programming in Spanish and other programming not available by broadcast in the community. For these reasons, Echonet requests that the forfeiture be retracted. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Echonet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3915A1.html
      • financial hardship.5 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, WCVC's petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's Forfeiture Order issued on February 4, 2004, IS DENIED and the issuance of the $7,000 forfeiture IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.6 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3947A1.html
      • October 6, 2004, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to VIA.3 VIA has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act4, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 VIA Technologies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-396A1.html
      • rules. In light of this apparent violation, we believe it appropriate that Saga be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation29 and provides that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act30 and 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,31 which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''32 Based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, in particular because this appears to be an isolated violation, we find the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-397A1.html
      • we believe it appropriate that Cumulus be assessed a monetary forfeiture. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000.00 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation15 and provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''),16 and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,17 which include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''18 Although we commend Cumulus' efforts to remind its Myrtle Beach on-air employees of the obligations of section 73.1206, Cumulus' subsequent remedial
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3983A1.html
      • act or failure to act.15 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''16 12. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.17 We find that the lack of a response to a Bureau LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a substantial increase to this base amount.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3991A1.html
      • public inspection file for station KMDY-FM during normal business hours and had apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management presence at station KMDY-FM. I. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Moody's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-399A1.html
      • and that ``the forfeiture will simply reduce the amount available to creditors when the bankruptcy is ultimately concluded.''7 North American also denies that the violation was willful, characterizing it as an ``isolated incident . . . result[ing] from inadvertency on the part of the station's staff. ''8 III. DISCUSSSION 5. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.''9 The forfeiture guidelines establish a $4,000 base forfeiture for exceeding authorized power limits.10 In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4004A1.html
      • and the dignity of parties whose conversations may be recorded for simultaneous or later broadcast.28 These considerations are particularly germane to the facts at issue here.29 Under these circumstances, we find that an apparent violation of section 73.1206 and that it is appropriate to propose that AMFM be assessed a monetary forfeiture. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.30 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation.31 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4023A1.html
      • fact by telephone on the same day. Citadel also asserts that all quarterly issues and program lists have since been placed in the files and that Citadel has a good record of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Citadel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4025A1.html
      • Atlanta Office's measurements were inaccurate, that the company undertook immediate and prompt remedial measures, and, finally, that the leakage problems, for the most part, were attributable to customers premises equipment and inside wiring. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4029A1.html
      • inspection file has been addressed by the station manager.'' Rama seeks an elimination of the forfeiture or a reduction, based on the violations being technical in nature and not warranting an $18,000 forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 5 In examining Rama's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4031A1.html
      • 14, 2004. In its response to the NAL, which includes a declaration made under the penalty of perjury by the station's chief engineer, Alfred Hammond, JMK seeks cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining JMK's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4032A1.html
      • of approximately 12% reduced to approximately 4.5% of gross revenues). We do not reach the cases cited by SM Radio in support of its request for reconsideration because of the reasons discussed below. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining SM Radio's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4033A1.html
      • its existing towers cannot be repainted because the towers lead paint if scraped could be harmful to the surrounding environment, and because its efforts to relocate to a new location have been hampered by environmental-related concerns as well. III. DISCUSSION 6. The NAL assessed the proposed forfeiture amount in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Cumulus's response to the NAL, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4036A1.html
      • In a separate note attached to its response, Caprice also states that it cannot afford to pay $4,000 and requests that the Commission consider reducing the forfeiture amount on that basis as well. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules6, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Caprice's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4044A1.html
      • findings. FFP nevertheless sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based upon its good faith efforts to comply with the subject registration requirements, after the Tampa Office notified FFP of the lack of registration. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-4045A1.html
      • use of the Louisa tower and would have dismantled it but for Francis's request to use it. 5. The ASR data base indicates that Lycom registered the Louisa tower on March 8, 2004. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Lycom's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-445A1.html
      • to the NAL. The Bureau's Forfeiture Order, released January 31, 2003, affirmed the forfeiture proposed by the NAL. On February 26, 2003, Coffee County filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Coffee County's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-458A1.html
      • have any way in which to verify whether the station was in violation of the Commission's rules. Mr. Alusma also argues that he is unable to pay the forfeiture due to financial hardship. In support of his argument of financial hardship, Mr. Alusma includes various financial documents. III. DISCUSSION 6. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.''4 The forfeiture guidelines establish a $10,000 base forfeiture for operation without a license.5 In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-48A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-48A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-48A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-53A1.html
      • a couple of days. Tekk further states that its violation was not willful and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. Therefore, Tekk seeks reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Tekk's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-544A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-544A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-544A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-602A1.html
      • Roots has no assets. According to Virginia State Corporation Commission records, the business license for Grass Roots Broadcasting, LLC, was cancelled on December 31, 2003. Finally, Grass Roots states that the cited rule violations have been corrected. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act,4 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules,5 we conclude that cancellation of the proposed $20,000 forfeiture is warranted.6 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the proposed $20,000 forfeiture issued to Grass Roots broadcasting IS CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be sent by regular
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-605A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-605A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-605A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-684A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-684A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-684A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-692A1.html
      • 73.49 of the Rules. In its response, State requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its corrective efforts and its participation in the Georgia Association of Broadcasters' Alternative Broadcast Inspection Program (``ABIP''). III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining State's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-701A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(3) 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-701A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-701A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-708A1.html
      • licensee's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a forfeiture.8 After reviewing the financial data submitted, we find that the monetary forfeiture amount should not be further reduced. 9 11. We have examined Tralyn's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,10 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Tralyn willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the Rules and find that, although cancellation of the monetary forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the forfeiture amount to $5,600 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-709A1.html
      • have not received such a supplementary response. We did receive correspondence from Three Angels on February 13, 2004, but that correspondence simply transmits a copy of Three Angels' earlier response to the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Three Angels' response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-70A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). 7 Each entity shall encompass, to the extent they are known to you, any affiliate, d/b/a, parent companies, any wholly or partially owned subsidiary, or other affiliated companies or businesses, and all directors, officers, employees, or agents, including consultants and any other persons working for or on behalf of the foregoing at any time during the period covered by this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-710A1.html
      • or cancellation of the forfeiture, citing an inability to pay, Bonners Ferry's compliance history, remedial measures undertaken, and the physical location and seasonal ground conditions in the immediate area of the antenna structure. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 Section 1.80 of the Rules,3 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). In examining Bonners Ferry's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-711A1.html
      • owned and controlled company Kaspar Broadcasting Company, Inc., have an unblemished history of serving their broadcast communities. We believe that the circumstances surrounding and the nature and extent of Kaspar's violation, together with its unblemished past history, justifies cancellation of the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,12 the prior Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332560001, IS CANCELLED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Vern Kaspar, President, Kaspar Broadcasting Co. of Missouri, P.O. Box 545, Frankfort, Indiana 46041. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-773A1.html
      • willful and repeated violation of section 53.203(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. These violations pertain to the nondiscrimination safeguards established by the Act and the Commission's rules to promote efficient competition. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that a forfeiture of $75,000 is appropriate, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-784A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-784A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-784A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-793A1.html
      • the station.'' To support its financial hardship claim, NRS provides copies of its 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns as well as profit and loss statements covering a three year period. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining NRS's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-890A1.html
      • also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). 7 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2)(iii). A ``personal relationship'' exists if the recipient of the call is a ``family member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(11). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-890A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-890A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-898A1.html
      • consent to receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14129. 10 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 11 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-898A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-898A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-8A1.html
      • or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile machine'' as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-900A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $4,000 to Ivette. Ivette has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Esperanza Gonzales d/b/a Ivette Car Service IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-901A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'')2 in the amount of $4,000 to Star. Star has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Star Car Service IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-902A1.html
      • manager. Horne argues that payment of the proposed forfeiture would be a financial hardship. To support its financial hardship argument, Horne provides copies of its 1999, 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Horne's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-904A1.html
      • and/or repeatedly violate Section 303(q) of the Act or Sections 17.48(a) and 17.51(b) of the Rules. Specifically, the lighting outage was caused by lightning and the licensee promptly reported the outage to the Federal Aviation Administration. Accordingly, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200332360002, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Vicki Schultheis, Manager, FCC Licensing, CenturyTel Wireless of Michigan RSA #1&2, Inc., PO Box 9901, Vancouver, Washington 98668-8701. FEDERAL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-90A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09. See also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-90A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-90A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-923A1.html
      • 30 days of the release of this order outlining what measures it has taken or will take to correct the violation and ensure that this does not recur. SM Radio's report must be submitted in the form of an affidavit or declaration.4 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the (``Act''),5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, SM Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 73.1125 of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules6 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-926A1.html
      • that, if the proposed forfeiture is imposed, it will place a serious financial burden on the company and provides copies of its 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns to support this claim. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining Westshore's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-947A1.html
      • NAL, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture claiming that the violations resulted from employee error. Petracom also seeks cancellation based on remedial measures taken, an inability to pay, and a history of overall compliance. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement'').5 In examining Petracom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-956A1.html
      • file available at the main studio and that it has good record of compliance with FCC requirements. In addition, Trade Center argues that it relied on the advice of its engineer. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case is being was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Trade Center's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-974A1.html
      • demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 47 U.S.C. 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 68.318(d). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-974A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-974A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-976A1.html
      • notice may not have provided AAPEX participants with adequate information, given that Schumacher's booth exhibited mock-ups of both authorized, and non-authorized, equipment. We thus caution Schumacher to exercise greater care, by labeling or providing alternative advisory notice for identified authorized devices and by utilizing the standard disclaimer notice for identified non-authorized devices. 12. Section 503(b) of the Act,22 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,23 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244194A1.html
      • the amount of $7,100. The Companies may prepay this amount, and are encouraged to do so, without penalty. The Companies must make these payments by check, wire transfer or money order drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission, and the check, or money order must refer to NAL Acct. No. 200332170002 and FRN No. 0007179054. See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h). The Companies must mail the check or money order to: Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. 16. In express reliance on the covenants and representations contained herein, the Bureau agrees to terminate this Proceeding and resolve the Show Cause Order. 17. The Companies represent and warrant that they shall not, for the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DOC-244497A1.html
      • the sum of $5,379,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),1 as well as the Commission's related rules and orders. 2.This Erratum corrects the Order of Forfeiture to require Fax.com, Inc. and its affiliated entities, successors and assigns to pay the penalty in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within 30 days from the release of this Erratum.2 If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified herein, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 504(a). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-03-336A1.html
      • has failed to identify facts or circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for modifying the forfeiture proposed in the Fax.com NAL. As discussed above, Fax.com has not shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. 32. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f)(4), that Fax.com, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $5,379,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, section 64.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200, and the Commission's orders concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.72 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-128A1.html
      • review has lapsed; 1)j. "Indecency Laws" means 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. 1)k. "Inquiries" means investigations of alleged violations of the Indecency Laws by Clear Channel Stations that have resulted in LOIs to Clear Channel, or to other licensees that relate to Clear Channel Stations; 1)l. "NALs" means Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including (i) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C., et al., released March 12, 2004 (FCC 04-47), (ii) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning Capstar TX Limited Partnership released March 18, 2004 (FCC 04-36), and (iii) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning Clear Channel Broadcasting
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-138A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount for the operation at an unauthorized location or frequency of $4,000.22 However, we think that a substantial upward adjustment of this base forfeiture amount is warranted. As DIRECTV implicitly acknowledged in its October 3, 2003 STA request,23 strict adherence to the rules that govern modification of satellite authorizations is critical to minimizing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-139A1.html
      • this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Section 1.80(b) ) of the Commission's Rules ) ) Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima ) to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: June 14, 2004 Released: June 18, 2004 By the Commission: 1. This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties established in that section to account for inflation since the last
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-16A1.html
      • California ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 23, 2004 Released: January 27, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell, and Commissioners Copps, Martin, and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc. (``Young''), licensee of Station KRON-TV, San Francisco, California, aired program material during the ``KRON 4 Morning News'' show on October 4, 2002, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material.2 Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-17A1.html
      • LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 26, 2004 Released: January 27, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a separate statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the captioned stations during the July 19, November 14, 19, 26 and 27 and December 27, 2001, broadcasts of the ``Bubba
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-186A1.html
      • which the Bureau granted in part C.W.H. Broadcasting's Petition for Reconsideration26 of the C.W.H. Broadcasting Forfeiture Order, that the forfeiture was further reduced from $3,500 to $500 based on an inability to pay.27 III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 28 Section 1.80 of the Rules,29 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.30 In examining Sutro's Application for Review, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-189A1.html
      • to financial hardship. What has been the effect of such waivers? 46. Enforcement. The Commission has been aggressively enforcing the Commission's EAS rules. In 2003, for example, the Enforcement Bureau took approximately 80 EAS enforcement actions. Nonetheless, some broadcasters have failed to install or properly maintain EAS equipment. The base forfeiture amount set in the Forfeiture Policy Statement94 and section 1.80 of the rules95 for an EAS violation is $8,000. We seek comment on whether we should increase the base amount or otherwise impose higher forfeitures in this area, and on whether there are additional ways to better ensure compliance. We also seek comment on whether we should seek legislation from Congress to increase the maximum forfeitures in this area from
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-197A1.html
      • of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Americans for Decency, 3431 W. Thunderbird Road, Box 275, Phoenix, Arizona 85053-5641. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 See Letter from Americans for Decency to Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, received May 7, 2003. 2 47 U.S.C. 503(b); 47 C.F.R. 1.80 3 Though not specifically defined in the complaint, ``dry humping'' is commonly understood to consist of two people rubbing their clothed bodies together for sexual stimulation. 4 U.S. CONST., amend. I; 47 U.S.C. 326 (2002). 5 18 U.S.C. 1464. 6 Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-356, 106 Stat. 949 (1992) (setting the current safe harbor of 10
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-199A1.html
      • investigations of alleged violations of the Indecency Laws by Emmis Stations that have resulted in LOIs to Emmis, or to other licensees that relate to Emmis Stations; 1)m. ``MO&O'' means that certain Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Commission released April 8, 2004 (File No. EB-00-IH-0401, FCC 04-62); 1)n. "NAL" means a Notice of Apparent Liability issued pursuant to Section 1.80(f) of the Rules; 1)o. "Parties" means Emmis and the Commission; 1)p. "Rules" means the Commission's regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. II. BACKGROUND II.1. Both the Commission and Emmis acknowledge that any proceedings that might result from the Forfeiture Orders, the MO&O, the Inquiries and/or the Complaints will be time- consuming and will require substantial
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-19A1.html
      • review of the MO&O, Alpha reiterated its claim and supplemented its tax returns with a letter from its accountant.5 Finally, Alpha described itself as a ``small ambulance company with 13 employees and six ambulances,''6 that experienced financial decline,7 and that ``lacked intent to operate without a license.''8 III. DISCUSSION 4. In The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, the Commission adopted guidelines for assessing base forfeiture amounts for violations of the Act and the Commission's rules, and ``retain[ed] the discretion to take action in specific cases as warranted.''9 The forfeiture guidelines establish a $10,000 base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized transmissions.10 In assessing the forfeiture, the Commission may adjust the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-205A1.html
      • be reduced because SpectraSite took remedial measures to correct the lighting outage prior to notification from the Commission, and that in fact, it had previously made an appointment with contractors for November 7, 2002, to restore the tower's lighting. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd. 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd. 303 (1999). In examining SpectraSite's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-209A1.html
      • Powell issuing a statement; Commissioners Copps and Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing separate statements; and Commissioner Adelstein approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,2 we find that the licensees of the CBS Network Stations, as defined herein,3 aired program material on February 1, 2004, at approximately 8:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, during the halftime entertainment show of the National Football League's Super Bowl XXXVIII, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material.4 Based upon our review
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-224A1.html
      • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: September 22, 2004 Released: October 15, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Entercom Sacramento License, LLC (``Entercom''), licensee of Station KRXQ(FM), Sacramento, California, broadcast indecent material on two separate occasions, in apparent willful and repeated violation of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we conclude that Entercom is apparently liable for a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-225A1.html
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: September 22, 2004 Released: November 23, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant two complaints2 and find that WQAM License Limited Partnership (``WQAM''), licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the station on September 9 and 10, 2003. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-226A1.html
      • reconsideration of the Reconsideration Order IS DENIED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')19 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules,20 Carl E. Person's Petition to Intervene and for a Rehearing IS DISMISSED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules21 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.22 Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-231A1.html
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: September 28, 2004 Released: December 22, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Martin approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Entercom Kansas City License, LLC, and Entercom Wichita License, LLC (collectively ``Entercom''),2 licensees of Stations KQRC-FM, Leavenworth, Kansas, and KFH(AM), Wichita, Kansas, respectively, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material during the April 4, April 29, May 2, and May 3, 2002, broadcasts of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-242A1.html
      • Network Program ?Married By America? On April 7, 2003 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 5, 2004 Released: October 12, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (?NAL?), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ?Act?), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,2 we find that the licensees of 169 Fox Television Network stations (?Fox Network Stations?)3 apparently broadcast indecent material during an episode of the Fox program ?Married By America? on April 7, 2003, in apparent willful violation of the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-259A1.html
      • and/or lease of such equipment.54 21. In the instant case, we find that ACR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, by advertising the PLB-200 to the general public, prior to certification without the disclaimer notice required by Section 2.803(c). III.C. Proposed Forfeiture. 22. Section 503(b) of the Act,55 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,56 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-268A1.html
      • respective direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliated entities which either hold authorizations for television and radio broadcast stations (individually referred to herein as a ``Viacom Station'') located throughout the United States or which distribute network or syndicated television and radio programming to broadcast stations (collectively, ``Viacom''). II. BACKGROUND 1. Viacom is subject to certain Forfeiture Orders issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC's Rules involving alleged violations of the Indecency Laws (collectively, ``Forfeiture Orders''). 2. Viacom is subject to certain Notices of Apparent Liability issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the FCC's Rules involving alleged violations of the Indecency Laws (``NALs''). 3. Viacom (and certain affiliates of the CBS Television Network and UPN) are subject to various Letters of Inquiry
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-270A1.html
      • unusual and unique facts and circumstances of this case and does not represent a more generalized weakening of our enforcement obligations. In the future, if entities fail to prepare and file EAs and the facts and circumstances warrant enforcement action, we will take such action. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the rules,19 the prior Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 20332100004 IS CANCELLED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Mr. William J. Hackett, Director of Regulatory Compliance, Western Wireless Corporation, 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-272A1.html
      • under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''19 15. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')20 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,21 the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. 16. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-281A1.html
      • on its field study was reasonable and was a good faith basis for Radio One's belief that KKBT(FM) was not required to undertake the obligations set forth in Section 1.1307(b)(3) concerning stations that exceed the 5% RFR MPE threshold.36 III. DISCUSSION 16. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,37 Section 1.80 of the Rules,38 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').39 In examining the Mt. Wilson Licensees' responses, Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-293A1.html
      • advice rendered by Commission officials may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a mitigating factor to be considered in determining forfeiture amount). 13 Minority misstates the Forfeiture Order's holding. The Bureau cited only 17 announcements in setting the forfeiture amount at $10,000. See Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26611, 26616-17 at 15. 14 See id.; 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2); note to 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4). Under section 503(b) of the Act, each prohibited broadcast is deemed to constitute a separate offense. 15 See Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26611, 26616-17 at 15, n.55. 16 Id. 17 See Pine-Aire Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. (WRLS-FM), supra. 18 See Xavier University, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4920 (1990) (the Commission defers to the ``reasonable, good faith judgments''
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-34A1.html
      • cases.4 We therefore deny Infinity's petition. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')5 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules,6 Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act..8 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-35A1.html
      • separate violation. For purposes of this proceeding, we will use our traditional per-program approach. We hereby make clear that, in the future, we may treat situations like this as multiple, repeated violations with the accompanying increase in forfeitures. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,48 that AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($27,500.00) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-36A1.html
      • NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 20, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Martin and Adelstein issuing separate statements; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant a complaint,2 and find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership (``Capstar''), licensee of Stations WAVW(FM),3 Stuart, Florida, and WCZR(FM) Vero Beach, Florida, apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing indecent material over the stations on May 31, 2002. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-39A1.html
      • the Act.23 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''24 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')25 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,26 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of noncompliant equipment is $7,000. In this case, Samson imported and sold five distinct models. We find that a forfeiture amount of $7,000 is apparently warranted for each model. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-47A1.html
      • FORFEITURE Adopted: March 4, 2004 Released: March 12, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a statement; and Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we grant a complaint from Stephen M. Arner2 and find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly broadcasting indecent material over the stations on March 13, 2003. Based upon our review of the facts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-49A1.html
      • Adopted: March 8, 2004 Released: March 18, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioner Martin concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein issuing a statement; and Commission Copps dissenting and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc., licensee of Station WKRK-FM, Detroit, Michigan, aired program material during the ``Howard Stern Show'' on July 26, 2001, that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material.2 Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that Infinity is apparently liable
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-51A1.html
      • nevertheless seeks a substantial reduction in the assessed forfeiture, based upon her inability to pay, her unfamiliarity with Commission requirements, her efforts to correct the noted violations, and her belief that the Commission's base forfeiture scheme is arbitrary and excessive. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,15 Section 1.80 of the Rules,16 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.17 In examining Salazar's petition, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-57A1.html
      • of the Act and our rules, we find that Qwest is apparently liable for each of its 46 apparent violations of section 252(a)(1) of the Act, for a total proposed forfeiture of $9 million. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 53. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Qwest Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9 million for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within thirty days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-88A1.html
      • 60153 Licensee of Station WXDX-FM, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 7, 2004 Released: April 8, 2004 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that the captioned licensees, all of which are subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (``Clear Channel''), apparently violated 18 U.S.C. 1464 and 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, by willfully and repeatedly airing program material during two segments of the ``Howard Stern Show'' on April 9, 2003, that apparently violate the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-89A1.html
      • on May 30 and on June 1, 2001, was patently offensive and therefore apparently violated the Commission's indecency rule.7 The NAL proposed a monetary forfeiture penalty of Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00) based upon KNDD(FM)'s broadcast of apparently indecent material on two separate occasions. 4. On February 27, 2002, Entercom filed a response to the Bureau's NAL8 in accordance with Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules.9 Entercom contended that there is a clear absence of any sexual or excretory context or import in the complained-of material because there is no discussion about the sexual or excretory functions of the male genitalia.10 Thus, Entercom argued that the material was not patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-95A1.html
      • After receiving a large number of consumer complaints against WCSS, the Enforcement Bureau, along with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, launched an investigation into the consumers' allegations of slamming. As a result of this investigation, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability on January 15, 2004, finding WCSS apparently liable for 13 slamming violations. 3. Pursuant to section 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules,4 the Commission ordered WCSS to pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced 5 within 30 days of the NAL's release, i.e., on February 17, 2004.6 WCSS did not file a response to the NAL nor did it pay
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-9A1.html
      • Systems, Inc. has apparently violated section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders by changing the preferred telephone service carriers of 10 consumers on 13 occasions, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture of $560,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $560,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 258, and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 35 17. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-04-348A1.html
      • in exchange for payment, and belie any claim that the announcements were aired on a gratuitous basis. In addition, the inclusion of the Star Cruise announcement in the programming supplied to the station was, according to Minority, based on ``oral barter or trade arrangement'' and thus supported by consideration.36 B. Proposed Action 14. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.37 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.38 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also specifies that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1029A1.html
      • marketing this product. 3 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1029A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1029A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1030A1.html
      • April 8, 2005). 2 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1030A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1030A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1031A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1031A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1031A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1033A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1033A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1033A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1034A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1034A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1034A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1035A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1035A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1035A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1036A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1036A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1036A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1037A1.html
      • Communications Commission _________________________ 1 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1037A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1037A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1053A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1053A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1053A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1055A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1055A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1055A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1059A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1059A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1059A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1081A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1081A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1081A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1087A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1087A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1087A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1088A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1088A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1088A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1090A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1090A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1090A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-109A1.html
      • assessing the forfeiture, the Commission failed to follow the requirements of its own rules and regulations. Finally, Barinowski claims that the Bureau failed to consider the Section 503(b) factors in determining the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Barinowski's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1104A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 12 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1104A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1104A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1107A1.html
      • Bureau (March 30,2005). 2 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of- band emissions.'' 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1107A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1107A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-110A1.html
      • that it completed the change from frequency 151.790 MHz to 151.805 MHz on March 1, 2004. Finally, Mitchell requests a payment plan in the event that the forfeiture amount is not reduced or cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mitchell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1155A1.html
      • 4 47 C.F.R. 2.1 defines spurious emissions as ``Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions.'' 5 Response at 2. 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1155A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1155A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1367A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1367A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1367A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1388A1.html
      • frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. 2.803(g). 4 47 C.F.R. 2.807(d). 5 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1388A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1388A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1511A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that ACC Licensee, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1512A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that NBC Telemundo License Co. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 19. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1513A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Fox Television Stations, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 17. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1595A1.html
      • in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.2 On March 2, 2005, WBLT submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining WBLT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1597A1.html
      • ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act.2 Mr. McKinney filed a response to the NAL on May 6, 2005, requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. McKinney's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1599A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Dacres.2 Mr. Dacres has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Samuel E. Dacres IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating an FM radio transmitter without a license in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1611A1.html
      • the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act.3 Pembroke filed a response to the NAL dated April 14, 2005 requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Pembroke's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1621A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1621A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1621A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1622A1.html
      • Rules provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules ``shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. 2.803(g). 3 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1622A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1622A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1623A1.html
      • Universal had been using under the service agreement. Universal claims that neither vendor advised Universal that it was required to acquire a license to operate the portable transceivers on the frequency 465.63125 MHz. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1625A1.html
      • by an officer or director of Source. Source also must submit an affidavit, signed by an officer or director of Source, notifying the Commission when the structure has been brought into full compliance with the rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Source USA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 17.4(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to Commission correspondence. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Source shall file the plan described in paragraph 3 above within ten (10) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1631A1.html
      • expired on April 29, 2004 until the STA request was granted on January 4, 2005. During those eight months, WRN acted in apparent violation of Sections 301 of the Act and 25.102 of the Rules by willfully14 and repeatedly15 operating the earth station without Commission authority. 6. The guidelines contained in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,16 and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules17 specify a base forfeiture amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1633A1.html
      • ordinarily would warrant a proposed forfeiture above the base amount, we find that those factors are counter- balanced here by the licensee's good-faith efforts to remedy the situation prior to our initiation of this investigation.33 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,34 and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,35 that Capstar TX Limited Partnership is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Capstar TX
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-163A1.html
      • 4438 (Priv. Rad. Bur. 1994) (``Vaughn''), in support of its contention that the location at Parkview House site was within the Commission's authorized area of operation for its licensed coordinates III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Statcom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1666A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1666A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1666A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1684A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Kennedy.2 Mr. Kennedy has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Scottie E. Kennedy IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully operating a radio transmitter without a license in violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1685A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to Vector.2 Vector has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Vector Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on its antenna structures in violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1686A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mega Communications.2 Mega Communications has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Mega Communications of St. Petersburg, Licensee L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully failing to comply with prescribed antenna structure painting and lighting specifications in violation of Section 17.21 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1701A1.html
      • the Act.24 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''25 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')26 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,27 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Hawking imported and sold 7,520 units. We estimate that Hawking's economic gain from marketing 7,520 devices that retailed for about $75.00 each was, conservatively, at least
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1708A1.html
      • small market whose limited resources make a $3,000 forfeiture a significant obligation.'' In support, Brown Broadcasting submits federal income tax returns for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 as required by Paragraph 11 of the NAL. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'')5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Brown Broadcasting's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1709A1.html
      • based upon inability to pay, Mr. Clay seeks reconsideration and further reduction on the basis of changed circumstances. Specifically, he claims that his amount of monthly income has been reduced as a result of divorce.3 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Mr. Clay's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1711A1.html
      • KHRA's main studio when the inspection was conducted. Trade Center also argues that the record does not support the Commission's finding that Trade Center's violation of the public file rule was willful or repeated. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In examining Trade Center's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1783A1.html
      • Forfeiture Order should be affirmed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of Act8 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,9 the petition for reconsideration filed by Clamor Broadcasting Network, Inc., on August 20, 2004, IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.10 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1791A1.html
      • telephone dialing systems to contact, for example, emergency telephone lines, hospital patient rooms, and multi?line businesses. 2 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(D); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(4). 3 Although one complainant lists ``contacts.com'' as the company involved, Commission staff was redirected to your company's website upon entering the internet address ``contacts.com.'' See Complaint filed by R. Eaves, November 29, 2004. 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1791A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1791A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1817A1.html
      • action taken long prior to the issuance of the NAL,'' the applicable law does not support the proposed forfeiture and that such a forfeiture would be contrary to ``sound public policy'' and ``would fail to serve any public purpose.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,10 Section 1.80 of the Rules,11 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Lotus' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-18A1.html
      • whether these rules and procedures should be modified or eliminated.3 REVIEW OF RELEVANT RULES The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Section 1.80 addresses forfeiture penalties applicable to common carriers [and others]. These rules are not competition-related, and thus we cannot find that they are ``no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition.'' Accordingly, we find that these rules should be retained. Rules 1.711 through 1.736 set forth the procedures for formal complaint proceedings against common carriers.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1907A1.html
      • act or failure to act.16 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''17 10. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.18 QuickLink's failure to respond occurred in the face of numerous attempts by Bureau staff to call QuickLink's attention to the importance of responding to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1923A1.html
      • of the Enforcement Bureau. The above- captioned matter should have been closed with Mega Communications' payment of the $10,000 proposed forfeiture. Therefore, we cancel the $10,000 forfeiture issued to Mega Communications in the June 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended,4 and Sections 0.11, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4) and 1.113 of the Commission's Rules,5 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) issued to Mega Communications of St. Petersburg Licensee, L.L.C. in the June 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order IS CANCELED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mega
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1949A1.html
      • statements, HBS has neither submitted, nor cited to, any other evidence supporting its claim of financial hardship.14 However, in recognition of the fact that HBS has maintained heretofore a good overall compliance record, we will reduce the forfeiture from $10,000 to $8,000.15 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act16, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,17 Hispanic Broadcast System, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements in violation of section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules and section 399B of the Act. 6. Payment of the forfeiture must be made in the manner provided for in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2014A1.html
      • based on Noe's overall history of compliance with the Commission's rules, we find that a reduction in the forfeiture amount to the base amount of $4,000 per violation is warranted, for a total forfeiture of $8,000.42 IV.ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,43 Noe Corp., L.L.C., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules44 within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2036A1.html
      • ``dormant'' corporation. 6 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Martin Osterman, Product Manager, TeleRadio AB (November 4, 2004). 7 See Letter from Martin Osterman, Product Manager, TeleRadio AB, to Yasin Ozer, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 15, 2004). 8 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(c)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2036A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2036A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2043A1.html
      • exemplary efforts to ensure that KCDZ(FM) was able to receive local primary stations in two counties, while situated in an area that the relevant County EAS Plan describes as having ``difficult coverage,'' we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,3 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432900010, IS CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Morongo Basin Broadcasting Corporation, 6448 Hallee Road #5, Joshua Tree, California 92252. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rebecca L. Dorch Regional
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2060A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mr. Loflin.3 Mr. Loflin has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 David M. Loflin IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating a station on an unauthorized channel in violation of Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2064A1.html
      • operating equipment to the San Francisco agents and then surrendered his amateur license to the Commission. He also argues that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture and, to support this claim, supplies three years of tax records. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Silva's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2065A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($25,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a) of the Rules.3 On June 6, 2005, Twenty-One Sound submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture.4 III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Twenty-One Sound's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2069A1.html
      • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.6 On June 17, 2005, Hightech submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Hightech's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2228A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2228A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2228A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2234A1.html
      • of KLMO. Pilgrim asserts that the Bureau failed to give adequate weight to this information. Pilgrim also cites Renaissance Radio, Inc.,7 in further support of its request for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4.The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Pilgrim's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2235A1.html
      • KWYD had lost money each year, except for 2000, when it was marginally profitable. Pilgrim also cites Renaissance Radio, Inc.,7 in further support of its request for cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Pilgrim's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2236A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2236A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2236A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2237A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2237A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2237A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2238A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2238A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2238A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2258A1.html
      • 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that they provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $24,000 for each station. 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Waterman Broadcasting, Corp., IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $24,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2264A1.html
      • under penalty of perjury, and signed by an officer or director of the declarant. WKLC should note that its noncompliance could result in enforcement action. Further, we ADMONISH WKLC, Inc. for its failure to report the replacement of its original antenna structure. I.C. Ordering Clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200432340002, IS CANCELED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WKLC, Inc. is hereby ADMONISHED for its failure to report the replacement of its original antenna structure. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, WKLC, Inc. must submit the report described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2318A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission _________________________ 1 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2318A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2318A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2352A1.html
      • Commission (December 12, 2004). 3 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Division, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Joe Renzhou Yao (June 8, 2005). 4 Id. 5 See Letter from Joe Renzhou Yao, Owner of Joe's Photo Auction, to Neal McNeil, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (June 28, 2005). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2352A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2352A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2364A1.html
      • the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules.2 On June 15, 2005, Mr. Vera-Maury submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Vera-Maury's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2365A1.html
      • ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act.2 Mr. Riels filed a response to the NAL on June 8, 2005, requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Riels' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2366A1.html
      • inability to pay and thus no basis for reduction of the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Clephar's petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,5 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,6 Mr. Clephar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules7 within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2367A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $8,000 to Mr. Guerrero.2 Mr. Guerrero has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Rafael C. Guerrero IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to maintain operational EAS equipment at KRSC(AM), Othello, Washington, in violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules.5 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2374A1.html
      • Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Bee Taxi Corporation.2 Bee Taxi Corporation has neither paid the NAL nor filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Bee Taxi Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2375A1.html
      • of the violation, and payment of the forfeiture would impose a substantial financial hardship. Snow Hill submitted financial statements in supplements filed on November 4, 2004, March 28, 2005, and April 20, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2376A1.html
      • not have a license; (5) he ceased operating after the FCC agents inspected the station and provided him a warning letter; and (6) he is financially unable to pay the full forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2382A1.html
      • little doubt that Gibson was fully aware that the R-FM25B-WT and R-FM100B-WT have not been authorized for sale in the United States. 9. We find, accordingly, that Gibson apparently marketed two models of uncertified FM broadcast transmitters in the United States, in willful14 and repeated15 violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. 10. Section 1.80(d) of the Rules provides in pertinent part that: No forfeiture penalty shall be imposed upon any person under this section, if such person does not hold a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, and if such person is not an applicant for a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, unless, prior to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2392A1.html
      • to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $20,000 for QuickLink's failure to respond to a Commission communication as set forth in the QuickLink NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that QuickLink Telecom, Inc., SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2394A1.html
      • shoot - indoors, outdoors, run-and-gun, hand-held, b-roll, news, sports, documentaries - it makes no difference.'' 2An intentional radiator is ``A device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.'' 47 C.F.R. 15.3 (o). 3See 47 C.F.R. 2.1205. The specific import conditions are set forth in Section 2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 2.1204. 4See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2394A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2394A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-23A1.html
      • July 30, 2004, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $20,000 to PSN.2 PSN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act3, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,4 Pacific Spanish Network, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the express terms and conditions of its Section 325(c) permit. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2429A1.html
      • the Act.14 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''15 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')16 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,17 the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Here, Inteligain marketed, and apparently continues to market, equipment in a manner inconsistent with a condition in its equipment authorized intended to ensure compliance with RF exposure limits. Given
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2665A1.html
      • prior record of violation with the Commission. FMG petitioned for reconsideration stating that the Order failed to properly address FMG's arguments concerning the conditions of the tower, the agent's distance from the structure and other important facts which, in FMG's view, undermine the validity of the NAL. 4. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,4 as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines6 (``Forfeiture Guidelines'') set forth the Commission's standards for review of a petition for reconsideration of the imposition of a forfeiture for a rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2679A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii). Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2679A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2679A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2720A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $17,000 to Mr. Sims.3 Mr. Sims has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,5 Russell A. Sims, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for operating a citizens band radio station without Commission authorization and refusing to make his station available for inspection in violation of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2721A1.html
      • and repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.1125 of the Rules.2 Clamor filed a response to the NAL requesting reconsideration of the proposed forfeiture on December 22, 2004.3 Clamor's response included additional information and statements regarding the August inspection. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Clamor's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2722A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Ms. Salazar.2 Ms. Salazar has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Maria L. Salazar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526(e) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2754A1.html
      • In its Petition, CB has offered no new evidence nor cited any relevant case law to support a cancellation of the Forfeiture Order. We have reviewed carefully CB's arguments pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''),26 and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Policy Statement''),27 and Section 1.80 of the Rules.28 We conclude that CB's Petition should be denied and the Forfeiture Order affirmed, finding that CB willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. As the forfeiture amount has already been reduced from the original amount set out in the NAL, we determine
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2785A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). 8 The term ``facsimile broadcaster'' means ``a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(4). 9 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2785A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2785A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-287A1.html
      • 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages identified above. We have further determined that Septic Safety is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $14,500. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5),24 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Septic Safety, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $14,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2910A1.html
      • record, however, reveals no other sanctions for violation of Commission rules. In light of KOFI's history of overall compliance prior to this broadcast,21 we will lower the $6,000 forfeiture to the statutory base of $4,000.22 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,23 KOFI, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules24 within thirty (30) days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2973A1.html
      • forfeiture amount from $25,000 to $18,000, because it concluded the station's public file was incomplete, rather than unavailable. The Enforcement Bureau received Twenty-One Sound's petition for reconsideration on August 26, 2005, requesting further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, 6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Twenty-One Sound's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2994A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosure _________________________ 1 Tung Shi Technology Co., Ltd., 20 FCC Rcd 7801 (Enf. Bur. 2005). 2 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2994A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2994A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2995A1.html
      • its licenses expired) until February 14, 2005 (when its STA was granted). Thus, it appears that SDN violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file renewal applications, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its stations without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act,15 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,16 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2998A1.html
      • energy on these restricted frequencies. 5 See Public Notice, Report No. 2662, released June 25, 2004, regarding RM-11002. 6 See Order In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking of the Part 15 Regulations and Request for Waiver of the Part 2 Marketing Regulations, RM-11002, FCC 05-136, 20 FCC Rcd. 12256 (2005). 7 See 47 C.F.R. 2.807(d). 8 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2998A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2998A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3004A1.html
      • an instrument of authorization, Journal apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Journal also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by filing its license renewal application on July 27, 2005, more than one year beyond the 30-day requirement prescribed by the Rules. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act,15 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,16 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3025A1.html
      • station is licensed to operate with a directional antenna (ODD model ODD930823IG) and an ERP of 34 watts horizontal and 100 watts vertical. The station owner admitted that the station installed the non-directional antenna with no vertical component earlier in April. 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Family's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3063A1.html
      • a violation of a Commission order, subjecting it to possible enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures. The Federal Express delivery tracking system indicates that the follow-up letter was received by Shenzhen Ruidian Communication on June 13, 2005. To date, the Bureau has not received any response from Shenzhen Ruidian Communication. III. DISCUSSION 6. Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.5 In exercising our forfeiture authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3123A1.html
      • not engage in interference; that the actual motive behind the NAL is to silence his messages in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and that he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL.11 III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,12 Section 1.80 of the Rules,13 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.14 In examining Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3124A1.html
      • emergency existed; that he did not transmit for approximately 40 minutes;7 that he did not jam or interfere with any emergency communication; and that he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL.8 III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In examining Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3125A1.html
      • Connex models, because they are Amateur Radios. On July 27, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau rejected Hightech's arguments and released the Forfeiture Order. The Enforcement Bureau received Hightech's petition for reconsideration on August 30, 2005, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, 8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.10 In examining Hightech's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3192A1.html
      • act or failure to act.28 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''29 11. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.30 Blackstone's failures to respond occurred despite attempts by Bureau staff to call Blackstone's attention to the importance of responding to LOIs. We find that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3222A1.html
      • amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules.3 On September 15, 2005, Arcom submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Arcom's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3236A1.html
      • ASR's for antenna structure #1005017. Schikora filed a response to the NAL on January 7, 2005 (``Response'').5 Schikora's Response consists solely of a print-out of his FCC Registration Number registration form along with a note stating ``proof of registration.'' III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Schikora's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3246A1.html
      • dollars ($4,000) to Classic for violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on the unauthorized frequency of 31.02 MHz.4 Classic filed a response to the NAL on April 13, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was proposed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Classic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3248A1.html
      • since 1999 and had received three subsequent requests for information regarding the antenna structure registration. On April 7, 2005, Forsberg submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Forsberg's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3269A1.html
      • and that it believed in good faith that it had updated all of its ASR's. Finally, ACS argues that it has a history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules and, therefore, is entitled to a reduced forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining ACS's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3270A1.html
      • accurate; that the fence surrounding the KULE(AM) tower was effective; that the size of the gap in the fence is overstated in the NAL; and that, given Butterfield's recent compliance history with KULE(AM), a $7,000 forfeiture is not warranted. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 Section 1.80 of the Rules,5 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.6 In examining Butterfield's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-333A1.html
      • dollars ($21,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35, 73.840, 73.845, and 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules.2 Halifax filed a response to the NAL requesting partial cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture on January 7, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,3 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Halifax's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-336A1.html
      • to the contrary, we decline to cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture on the basis of inability to pay. 12. We have considered the forfeiture amount and we have examined Best Wok's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,7 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,8 as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Best Wok willfully violated Section 301 of the Act and find that neither cancellation nor reduction of the monetary forfeiture is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act9 and Section 1.106
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-344A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-344A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-344A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-345A1.html
      • 25, 2004, B.E.A. obtained an equipment authorization from the Commission. 6. In the instant case, we find that B.E.A. apparently willfully14 and repeatedly15 violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by importing and marketing in the United States intentional radiator devices prior to obtaining Commission equipment authorization. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules16 authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act.17 In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-346A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-346A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-346A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-349A1.html
      • ensuring that any material broadcast in a foreign language conforms to the requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules.27 To the extent that HBS has ignored its duties in this regard, we remind it to take appropriate care in the future to avoid further lapses of this type. B. Proposed Action 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.28 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.29 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-350A1.html
      • that it has discharged that engineer and replaced him with a qualified individual. Kimtron maintains that it has a history of compliance with Commission Rules and requests that the proposed forfeiture be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Kimtron's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-363A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to Mr. Westcott.2 Mr. Westcott has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Paul D. Westcott IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to Commission requests for information about his station. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-425A1.html
      • cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. Mr. Salter, who asserts he is retired and living on Social Security and fixed retirement benefits, provided copies of his tax returns to support his claim. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, 7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.9 In examining Mr. Salter's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-449A1.html
      • sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $20,000 for BigZoo's failure to respond to a Commission communication as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that BigZoo.com Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-455A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing persons accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Midwest Televison, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained in Appendix A.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-456A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $25,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-457A1.html
      • repeatedly violated section 713 of the Act and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules by failing to make emergency information that it provided to hearing people accessible to persons with hearing disabilities, resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $20,000. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 613, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2(b)(1)(i), as described in the paragraphs above and contained in Appendix
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-475A1.html
      • of petitions for reconsideration of forfeiture orders) (2001) (``EZ Sacramento''), recon. dismissed, 16 FCC Rcd 15,605 (2001). 9Infinity Radio Operations, Inc., Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, filed September 4, 2003 (``NAL Response''). 10Id. at 2-3. 11Petition at 1-7. 12NAL Response at 3-4. 13Petition at 6-7. 1447 U.S.C. 504(c). 15The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,102-04, 32-36 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Report and Order''); on recon., 15 FCC Rcd 303, 303-305, 3-5 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement Reconsideration Order'') (collectively, the ``Forfeiture Policy Statement Rulemaking''). In the instant proceeding, Infinity did not mention the rulemaking disposition of this precise issue until
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-480A1.html
      • it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture; it has no other violations of record; and as a small business, the fine is disproportionate to the size of its business. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission, in examining O'hana's response, take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-483A1.html
      • Dead Air's response, and the specific record before us, we conclude that the proposed monetary forfeiture against Dead Air should be cancelled, and Dead Air should be admonished for its violation of Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended4 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,5 the proposed $3,000 forfeiture issued to Dead Air Broadcasting, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dead Air Broadcasting, Inc., IS ADMONISHED for failure to register its tower. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Jo Ann Juliano,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-510A1.html
      • by on air radio personality to crisis hotline without prior notification of intent to broadcast, Bureau proposed base forfeiture amount for section 73.1206 violation notwithstanding licensee's claim that this was an ``isolated incident'' and that the licensee had taken remedial measures). 16See Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19744-45, 6. 17See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 18See Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19745 & n. 17. 19Petition at 6-8. 2047 U.S.C. 504(c). 21See, e.g., Saga Communications of Iowa, Inc., Notices of Violation, EB-01-KC-228 to EB-01-KC-233 (Enf. Bur. Kansas
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-52A1.html
      • a petition for reconsideration (``petition'') of the Forfeiture Order. In the petition, Mrs. Ortiz does not contest the violations; however, she seeks reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order on the basis of financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In examining Mrs. Ortiz's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-534A1.html
      • pursuing possible additional sanctions against Gerritsen.13 ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, Jack Gerritsen's Petition for Reconsideration, filed November 2, 2004, IS HEREBY DENIED. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.14 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-59A1.html
      • ) Facility ID No. 48975 FRN No. 0001716588 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 13, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that NOE Corp. LLC (``NOE''), licensee of Station KNOE-TV, Monroe, Louisiana, twice recorded telephone conversations for broadcast without informing parties to the calls of its intention to broadcast the conversations, in apparent willful and repeated violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.2 Based on our review of the facts, we conclude that NOE
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-60A1.html
      • Ohio Facility ID No. 59441 FRN No. 003957487 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 13, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company (``Scripps Howard''), licensee of Station WEWS-TV, Cleveland, Ohio, recorded a telephone conversation for broadcast and twice aired a portion of that recording without informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules.2 Based upon our
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-613A1.html
      • connection to the signal leakage violation. Finally, Mallard argues the Commission is barred from making a claim against the estate because ``the opportunity for asserting certain post-administrative expenses, those arising after May 9, 2003, expired on March 31, 2004.''11 III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,12 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),13 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Mallard's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-614A1.html
      • 31, 2005.3 The Anchorage Resident Agent granted the extension of time until January 31, 2005.4 Coleman, however, has failed to file a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Chester P. Coleman c/o American Radio Brokers, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 73.1125(a) and (e), 73.1740(a)(1) and 73.1745(b) of the Rules. 5 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-621A1.html
      • pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act,5 ARB, Inc. to report to the Enforcement Bureau, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order, whether it has achieved compliance with Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc., d/b/a/ Radio Station KFFR 1020, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.48(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 6 5. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Act, American Radio Brokers, Inc.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-624A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14040, 14014, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-624A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-624A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-634A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 7 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-634A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-634A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-680A1.html
      • the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. M.B. Communications filed a response to the NAL on August 31, 2004. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 Section 1.80 of the Rules,4 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.5 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-68A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14040, 14014, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-68A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-68A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-702A1.html
      • 21 times per day over a 10-week period. Therefore, we find that Leighton apparently violated section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly broadcasting station identification announcements that did not include the station's call letters immediately followed by the station's community of license. 5. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'')5 and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules6 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.7 Based upon the evidence before us, we find that Leighton willfully and repeatedly broadcast station identification announcements in apparent violation of section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules. Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-703A1.html
      • KZMN(FM), Kalispell, Montana ) FRN No. 0005072467 Facility ID No. 35369 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 17, 2005 Released: March 17, 2005 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,1 we find that KOFI, Inc. (``KOFI''), licensee of Station KZMN(FM), Kalispell, Montana, apparently willfully violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.1206, by broadcasting, and recording for later broadcast, a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so.2 For the following reasons, based upon our review
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-725A1.html
      • ensuring that any material broadcast in a foreign language conforms to the requirements of the Act and the Commission's rules.23 To the extent that Caguas has overlooked its duties in this regard, we remind it to take appropriate care in the future to avoid further violations of this type. B. Proposed Action 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.24 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements.25 The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-78A1.html
      • other than a signed written statement to demonstrate prior express consent to receive fax advertising. 51995 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408-09; see also 2003 TCPA Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14128 (concluding that publication of a fax number in a trade publication or directory does not demonstrate consent to receive fax advertising). 6 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-78A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-78A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-85A1.html
      • financial documentation provided, we conclude that payment of the proposed forfeiture would impose financial hardship on Mr. Goodman. In view of Mr. Goodman's extreme financial distress, cancellation of the $10,000 forfeiture assessment is warranted.6 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,7 the forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) proposed in the September 14, 2004, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Milton Goodman IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Milton Goodman,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-04-297A1.html
      • we are unable to determine that it cannot pay the forfeiture amount and we will not reduce the forfeiture on the basis of A-O's inability to pay. 19. We have examined A-O's petition for reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,30 and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,31 as well. As a result of our review, we again conclude that A-O willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 1.1310, 11.35, 73.1125, and 73.1400 of the Rules and that the appropriate forfeiture amount is $25,000. IV. Ordering Clauses 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act32 and Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-11A1.html
      • Licensee of Stations ) Facility ID No. 67071 KGBT-FM, McAllen, Texas KROM(FM), San Antonio, Texas NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: January 11, 2005 Released: January 12, 2005 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,2 we find that Univision Radio License Corporation (``Univision Radio License) and Tichenor License Corporation (``Tichenor License''), licensees of the above-captioned stations, apparently violated section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.1206, by broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so.3 Based on our review of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-145A1.html
      • Commission (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by InPhonic, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.83 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 34. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,84 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,85 that InPhonic is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $819,905 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,86 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, InPhonic
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-146A1.html
      • order Teletronics to file with USAC within thirty days all Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date it began providing telecommunications service in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 39. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,87 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,88 that Teletronics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $692,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,89 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-147A1.html
      • willfully and repeatedly failed to respond to the Bureau's LOIs. Specifically with respect to the LOI issued August 18, 2004, Carrera provided only an untimely and partial response and with respect to the LOIs issued November 5, 2004 and January 21, 2005, Carrera never responded in any manner, despite repeated attempts by Bureau staff to elicit responses from Carrera.84 Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication.85 However, misconduct of this type warrants an upward adjustment because it exhibits a disregard for the Commission's authority that cannot be tolerated, and, more importantly, it threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to adequately investigate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-156A1.html
      • failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by TMI, in accordance with the agency's red light rules.58 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Telecom Management, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $280,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,59 within thirty days of the release date of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-157A1.html
      • failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by OCMC, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.42 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that OCMC, Inc.is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,761 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,43 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-167A1.html
      • of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of BCE Nexxia's operating authority, including disqualification of BCE Nexxia's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission.58 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that BCE Nexxia is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $282,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, within thirty days of the release date
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-168A1.html
      • USAC within thirty days all Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets and amended Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date that Telecom House commenced providing telecommunications services in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 36. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,94 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,95 that Telecom House is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $529,300 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,96 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-185A1.html
      • CSII to file with USAC within thirty days all annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets required under the Commission's rules from the date that CSII commenced providing telecommunications services in the United States to the date of this NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 31. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,76 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,77 that CSII is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $462,638 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,78 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, CSII
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-186A1.html
      • (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by Global Teldata, in accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.82 V. ORDERING CLAUSES 31. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,83 and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,84 Global Teldata II, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,85 within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-209A1.html
      • IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act6 and Section 1.106 of the Rules,7 the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Maria L. Salazar of the Commission's March 16, 2004 Order for the NAL/Acct. referenced above IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT NOTED HEREIN. 4. Payment of the $15,500 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.8 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-47A1.html
      • our national do-not-call requirements, as described above. We have further determined that Dynasty is apparently liable in the amount of $11,000 for each of 70 violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, for a total of $770,000. 37. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $770,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 64.1200(c)(2) as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-102A1.html
      • and its attorney, James R. Cooke, Harris Beach, L.L.P., 1776 K Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 M.J. Phillips Communications, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 11051 (Enf. Bur. 2004). 247 C.F.R. 73.1560(a)(1), 11.35(a), 11.52(d) and 17.4(a). 3 47 U.S.C. 503(b). 4 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D). See also note to Section 1.80(b)(4), Section II, Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures, Downward Adjustment Criteria. 5AM stations are required to maintain antenna input power levels ``as near as is practicable'' to, and not less than 90 percent or more than 105 percent of, their authorized power level. See 47 C.F.R. 73.1560(a)(1). Station WJJL's antenna input power levels exceeded its authorized power limit of 1000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1045A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Cibao Express. Cibao Express has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Cibao Express - Car & Limo Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. S 1.903(a). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1046A1.html
      • other cases in which $4,000 forfeitures have been assessed. WTMR further describes its violation as a "comparatively minor infraction" and points to remedial efforts it has taken since the issuance of the NAL. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1084A1.html
      • to Oneida Air Systems, Inc. (January 23, 2006). Response at 6. Id. Id. at 12. Id. 47 C.F.R. S 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an intentional radiator as "a device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S 15.19(a). 47 C.F.R. S 15.21. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). It should be noted that unfamiliarity with the Act or Rules requirements does excuse past violations. See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc.. FCC 06-30 P 16 (rel. March 14, 2006); see also Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P 5 (1993). Additionally, corrective measures taken after Commission notification, or initiation of investigation into, does not excuse past violations
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1091A1.html
      • in the amount of $13,000 to El Dorado. Despite repeated contacts by the Los Angeles Office, El Dorado has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, El Dorado 900, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, and 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1176A1.html
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 20. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred following two extension requests by ITE of the required response deadline, repeated
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1189A1.html
      • until January 10, 2006. By operating its earth station for approximately nine months without an instrument of authorization, Gilmore apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Gilmore also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-122A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 2 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1). 3 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-122A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-124A1.html
      • fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures _________________________ 1 Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 2 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1). 3 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5). 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-124A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1267A1.html
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Universal's failures to respond occurred despite Bureau staff's repeated attempts to call Universal's attention to the importance of responding to the LOI. We find that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1286A1.html
      • ) FRN No. 0001587971 Orlando, Florida ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 16, 2006 Released: June 20, 2006 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station WRUM(FM), Orlando, Florida, broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1298A1.html
      • the United States Postal Service, and by hand by the Idaho County Sheriff's Department. Despite these contacts, Scrugham has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, William W. Scrugham, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1304A1.html
      • "include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement or constitute a telephone solicitation"; 4) to persons "with whom the caller has an established business relationship at the time the call is made"; and 5) "made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization." 7. The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining ESI's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such matters as justice may require. 8.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1324A1.html
      • deploying unauthorized 98 cm antennas, violated the Commission's two degree spacing policy and thereby creates the potential for causing interference. Thus, all three modifications affected the parameters or terms and conditions of AGF's authorizations. Therefore, AGF's failure to obtain prior Commission approval before implementing the modifications violated Section 25.117(a) of the Rules. 2. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1325A1.html
      • of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission ...." A violation resulting from an inadvertent mistake or a failure to become familiar with the FCC's requirements is considered a willful violation. 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1328A1.html
      • and that the Commission's licensing scheme for low power FM radio stations is "egregiously unconstitutional." 916 Radio also states that it does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture and requests that the forfeiture be reduced or cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1330A1.html
      • equipment was at all times fully operational; that the station had most of the required logging slips; and that if someone had not "jostled loose" the plug on the EAS receiver, the station would have been in full compliance. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1334A1.html
      • are not CB transceivers. Specifically, TravelCenters argues that the Galaxy transceivers are not covered by the Commission's definition of CB transmitter, and that the Commision's effort to clarify this definition was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-136A1.html
      • under the Act.20 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''21 12. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')22 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,23 the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ramsey marketed two models of unauthorized broadcast transmitters (FM35WT and FM100BWT) and two models of unauthorized external RF power amplifiers (PA100 and LPA1WT). Ramsey's marketing of each of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1430A1.html
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1430 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1430 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1430A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1431A1.html
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1431 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1431 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1431A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1433A1.html
      • or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kris A. Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1433 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1433 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1433A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1436A1.html
      • Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. S 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(e)(4) defines marketing as the "sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1436 3 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1436 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://store.ovislinkonline.com/info.html References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1436A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1436A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1437A1.html
      • to consider Mr. Desinor's petition for reconsideration and it will be dismissed as untimely. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Act and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, Jhony Desinor's petition for reconsideration IS DISMISSED as untimely. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check, money order or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1442A1.html
      • violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that AboCom's conduct has continued over a period that began on May 12, 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to AboCom's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 11. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-144A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Simon.2 Simon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Sylvane Simon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1459A1.html
      • in this case. Specifically, we conclude that the violation occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive or to favor a particular contestant or class of contestants. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that NM Licensing, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, NM Licensing, LLC
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1467A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1467 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1467 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1467A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1467A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1536A1.html
      • dismiss its Petition. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Arcom Communications' Petition for Reconsideration of the December 21, 2005 Forfeiture Order IS hereby DENIED. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1537A1.html
      • 25, 2006, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to New Life. New Life filed a response to the NAL dated May 25, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining New Life's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1564A1.html
      • 2005, until May 26, 2006. By operating its earth station for one year without an instrument of authorization, Lazer apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Lazer also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1604A1.html
      • the Forfeiture Order, but seeks a remission or reduction of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay. In support of this request, M.B. Communications submits its tax returns for the past three years. III. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.B. Communications' petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1605A1.html
      • him is preemptive, unauthorized and unconstitutional since the Commission has not responded to his request for emergency authority; that his Constitutional rights are being infringed; and that no court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Commission's forfeiture procedures. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Britcher's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1606A1.html
      • him is preemptive, unauthorized and unconstitutional since the Commission has not responded to his request for emergency authority; that his Constitutional rights are being infringed; and that no court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Commission's forfeiture procedures. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Duncan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1607A1.html
      • or a Telecommunication Certification Body, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. S 2.907. Keymark was issued a certification for the PC Defender Screen Lock on December 23, 2003 under FCC ID: PG8KW101T. Keymark was issued a certification for the Wireless Separation Alarm on June 3, 2002 under FCC ID: PG8101T01. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1607A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1607A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1646A1.html
      • are committed knowingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Intelsat apparently provided to the Commission in conjunction with its August 17, 2005, Fleet Management Notice material factual information that was incorrect and/or misleading without having a reasonable basis for making the representations contained therein, in violation of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. 12. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentations or lack of candor is the statutory maximum or, in this case, $11,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1650A1.html
      • June 5, 2006, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Gilmore. Gilmore has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gilmore Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 25.102(a) and 25.121(e) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1665A1.html
      • inspect it and who came to the transmitter shed only after the agent contacted him. This minimal presence clearly did not satisfy the requirement for a meaningful presence at the main studio. We affirm, therefore, the Forfeiture Order's determination that Evangelism violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules. C. Downward Adjustment Factors 1. Background 10. The Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules permit downward adjustment of forfeitures on the basis of a minor violation, good faith or voluntary disclosure, history of overall compliance or inability pay as well as other factors within the discretion of the Commission and its staff. 1. Discussion a. History of Overall Compliance 11. Evangelism again seeks reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture by arguing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1666A1.html
      • San Diego Office's NAL, were done in reliance on this advice and therefore the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled. Kojo attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1667A1.html
      • attach the report required by the San Diego Office concerning the location of its transmitter. Review of the Commission's records reveals that Anderson filed an application to modify the WQCT534 license by amending the coordinates of the transmitter location. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1668A1.html
      • Diego Office's NAL, were done in reliance on this advice and therefore the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled. More Enterprises attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1669A1.html
      • be cancelled. Uniradio attaches affidavits from its counsel and consulting engineer detailing what they were told by International Bureau staff in 2001, along with an STA request filed by its counsel for another 23 GHz cross-border operator in 2001. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1670A1.html
      • is dismissed as untimely. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the Act and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS DISMISSED as untimely. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Paladen Communications, Inc., a/k/a CB Shop, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.815(b) and 2.815(c) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1673A1.html
      • therefore, the NAL should be cancelled. Krieger also argues that it did not knowingly cause the transmissions to be repeated. Finally, Krieger asserts that it corrected the error as soon as it was notified by the San Diego Office. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1674A1.html
      • therefore, the NAL should be cancelled. Lamkin also argues that it did not knowingly cause the transmissions to be repeated. Finally, Lamkin asserts that it corrected the error as soon as it was notified by the San Diego Office. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1694A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1694 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1694 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1694A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1694A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1697A1.html
      • does not provide adequate financial documentation. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(j) of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. d/b/a/ Hobbytron.com, IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc., d/b/a Hobbytron.com, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1717A1.html
      • Tampa Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $5,000 to Brasfield & Gorrie. Brasfield & Gorrie filed a response to the NAL dated March 23, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Brasfield & Gorrie's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1720A1.html
      • Rules, that the Petition for Extension of Time to file an Application for Review and the Petition for Acceptance of Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Lotus Communications Corporation, ARE DENIED, and the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Lotus Communications Corporation IS DISMISSED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Lotus Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.21(a), 17.47, 17.48 and 17.49 of the Rules. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1726A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with prerecorded sales message to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1726 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1726 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1726A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1726A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1732A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1732 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1732 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1732A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1732A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1753A1.html
      • it had achieved compliance with Section 17.4(a) of the Rules. In a timely-filed request for reconsideration, FFP notified the Commission that the tower had been demolished on September 14, 2004, and it further requested that the Forfeiture Order be reconsidered. III. discussion 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1754A1.html
      • the violations, states that it has made efforts to correct the violations, and requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture due to its "spotless track record" and "many years of untarnished service." III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining 127 Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1783A1.html
      • and dated November 4, 2004, and December 4, 2004 ("Petitions"). Both Petitions requested reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on inability to pay. Mr. Konarz's Petitions acknowledged all of the violations and stated that they had been corrected. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Konarz's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1785A1.html
      • of Pacnet be turned over to Kremen. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, neither Pacnet, nor Kremen, has filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacnet Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1786A1.html
      • of Pacnet be turned over to Kremen. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, neither Pacnet, nor Kremen, has filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Pacnet Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act by operating a microwave radio station without authorization. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1929A1.html
      • 9, 2005, West Coast submitted a response to the NAL requesting the ability to pay the forfeiture in installments. West Coast, however, failed to submit its good faith payment and its request for an installment payment plan was denied. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining West Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1930A1.html
      • On May 3, 2006, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $11,000 to Hacienda. Hacienda filed a response to the NAL dated June 1, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Hacienda's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1933A1.html
      • the radios offered for sale in its catalog, along with a copy of its catalog, and states that it has taken efforts to ensure that both its inventory of radios, and its catalog, comply with the Commission's labeling requirements. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1934A1.html
      • EAS system has been used infrequently, and that this infrequent use does not support the severity of the proposed forfeiture. Finally, the Petersons state that since the NAL was released, they have purchased and installed EAS equipment for KBSZ(AM). III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1935A1.html
      • and, to support this claim, supplies three years of tax records. Finally, if a forfeiture is imposed, Craig asks for a personal interview and/or a hearing with a Commission official at the nearest field office to discuss the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Craig's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1936A1.html
      • because "Loves' continuing violations of the equipment authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules." On March 9, 2006, Loves submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Loves' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1941A1.html
      • the NAL on May 15, 2006. Renda does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests a reduction in the forfeiture amount based on its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. Discussion 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1942A1.html
      • 2006, requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on their inability to pay and the fact that they have ceased operating the station. They do not otherwise dispute the findings in the NAL. III. Discussion 3. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1943A1.html
      • March 16, 2005; and (3) Trap Rock's history of compliance. Trap Rock also reports in its response to the NAL that the painting of the antenna structure was completed on September 16, 2005. III. Discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1978A1.html
      • of Section 73.49 of the Rules. In its response to the NAL, WSMN claims that the proposed forfeiture should be rescinded because WSMN is not the owner of the antenna structures at issue. III. Discussion 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2018A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Deroux. Deroux has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,Shawn Deroux IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2019A1.html
      • "[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The 1.2 GHz wireless camera purposely transmits RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2019 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2019 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.lightobject.com/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2019A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2019A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2040A1.html
      • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 17.51(a) of the Rules. On December 23, 2005, the Norfolk Office received TC's response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining TC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-204A1.html
      • for Mr. Saunders' violation of Section 17.51 of the Rules. On January 5, 2005, Mr. Saunders filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, which he supplemented on February 15, 2005. 9. III. DISCUSSION 10. 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),7 Section 1.80 of the Rules,8 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Saunders' petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2063A1.html
      • appropriate agencies, completed the required documentation, and instituted new policies to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met before it constructs any new communications facilities. After receiving Panhandle's LOI response, the WTB referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. III. DISCUSSION 13. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2065A1.html
      • after the company realized its error, it contacted appropriate state and federal agencies, completed the required documentation, and provided further environmental training for its staff. After receiving T-Mobile's LOI response, the WTB referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. III. DISCUSSION 14. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-206A1.html
      • to dismantle the towers and would continue to update the Commission on its progress in curing the violation. On August 3, 2005, Cumulus informed the Enforcement Bureau that it had completed demolition of the subject towers on July 22, 2005. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11 In examining the Cumulus Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2084A1.html
      • rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages identified above. We have further determined that 1 Home Lending Corporation d.b.a. Capital Line Financial, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that 1 Home Lending Corporation d.b.a. Capital Line Financial, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of an APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-20A1.html
      • has never operated an unlicensed station on that frequency in Philadelphia, PA. He further states that nothing has ever been found at his house and there could be radio stations operating somewhere else in the vicinity of his house.4 III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.7 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-220A1.html
      • assessed.14 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 10. We have determined that Alltel has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Alltel apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,15 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,16 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,17 Alltel IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2210A1.html
      • committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that E-DA-HOE failed to properly broadcast station identification information, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1201 of the Commission's rules. 7. The statutory maximum forfeiture amount for each apparent violation in this case is $27,500. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the station identification rule is $1,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-221A1.html
      • assessed.14 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 10. We have determined that AT&T has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find AT&T apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,15 Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,16 and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,17 AT&T IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2229A1.html
      • did not violate the Section 302(b) of the Act or Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules, and that, if there is basis for a monetary forfeiture, the amount proposed by the NAL is excessive. III. DISCUSSION 2. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2259A1.html
      • 25, 2005, the Resident Agent of the San Juan Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $15,000 to A Radio. A Radio filed a response to the NAL dated January 11, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2273A1.html
      • ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 1.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.108, we hereby reconsider and amend, on our own motion, the October 13, 2006, Forfeiture Order, as explained herein. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shawn Deroux IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2286A1.html
      • July 17, 2006, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to AboCom. AboCom has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, AboCom Systems, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2288A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Colon. Mr. Colon has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Carlos M. Colon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2289A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Guzman. Mr. Guzman has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Raul Guzman Reyes IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2290A1.html
      • amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. On October 13, 2006, the Tampa Office received CSN's response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining CSN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2301A1.html
      • has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Spectracom, LLC apparently willfully violated Section 1.948 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify and receive approval from the Commission for the assignment of three licenses prior to consummation of the transaction. 6. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for engaging in an unauthorized transfer of substantial control of a licensee is $8,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2337A1.html
      • operating its PLMRS station for approximately 15 months without an instrument of authorization, Hare Planting apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Hare Planting also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2350A1.html
      • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2354A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at P5. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2354 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2354 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2354A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2354A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2472A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Venters. Mr. Venters has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Adam Troy Venters IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2473A1.html
      • Orleans Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $13,000 to Patrick. Patrick has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jamie Patrick Broadcasting, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violation of Sections 17.4(a), 17.50, and 17.51 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2479A1.html
      • the NAL, GI Joe's does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation or reduction based on an inability to pay. In support of the request, GI Joe's submitted federal income tax returns. III. Discussion 3. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2480A1.html
      • NAL on September 28, 2006. In his response, Parks does not dispute the factual findings in the NAL, but requests a cancellation or reduction in the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2497A1.html
      • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 3. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, iBuypower marketed two unauthorized computer systems, one featuring the AMD Athlon-64 processor and one featuring the Athlon-64 X2 processor. iBuypower's marketing of each unauthorized computer system is a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2499A1.html
      • Communications Commission, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 22, 2006), at 1. Id. at 4. MSSI indicated, however, that the radio frequency identification tags utilized in the system, which are intentional radiators subject to the equipment certification requirements, were certified prior to marketing of the system. Id. at 2. Id. at 1. See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2499 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2499 References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2499A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2499A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2537A1.html
      • NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On October 20, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received TC's petition for reconsideration on November 20, 2006, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining TC's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2549A1.html
      • the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by offering for sale non-certified CB transceivers. As discussed more fully below, Gambler filed a response to the NAL, seeking cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2553A1.html
      • Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Conrad. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Conrad has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Alan M. Conrad, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2554A1.html
      • Office in contacting CRC, that CRC fully cooperated with the Los Angeles Office in determining the reasons for the failures of the lighting on antenna structure #1019247, and that CRC has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining CRC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2588A1.html
      • one point in time had a license for 856.3625 MHz at another site in the same Las Vegas market; that the operation at the unauthorized location caused no known interference; and because of ESP's history of FCC rule compliance. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining ESP's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-323A1.html
      • however, JMK does dispute the Bureau's interpretation of a pertinent question asked by the Columbia Office in the LOI and JMK's response thereto, as well as the Bureau's handling of Mr. Hammond's declaration. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended (``Act''), 6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining JMK's petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-326A1.html
      • map,3 ``Public and Broadcasting'' manual (``manual'')4 and certain issues/programs lists.5 On April 18, 2003, the Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''),6 proposing a $4,000 forfeiture against Lebanon for its apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527(c)(1) of the Rules. The proposed forfeiture amount was downwardly adjusted from the $10,000 base forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules because the ``public inspection file contained a portion of the required items.''7 3. In a May 9, 2003, response to the NAL (``Response''), Lebanon sought cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Lebanon claimed that the contour map and manual were in the public inspection file but not shown to the agent, because the station employee who was present
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-410A1.html
      • Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Marius.2 Marius has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Jean Harold Marius IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-474A1.html
      • in the amount of $10,000 to Pacific Spanish.2 Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Pacific Spanish has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (?Act?),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 Pacific Spanish Network, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating a microwave radio station in Chula Vista, California, without a license, in violation of Section 301 of the Act.5 4.Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-476A1.html
      • Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $4,000 to ICB.2 Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, ICB has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,4 International Customs Brokers, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly operating station WNTT908, in San Diego, California, on an unauthorized channel, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules.5 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-497A1.html
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Shenzhen Ruidian Communication. Shenzhen Ruidian Communication has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Shenzhen Ruidian Communication Co. Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau to provide certain information and documents. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-53A1.html
      • In his Response, Mollinedo states that he received bad advice from an associate regarding the need for a license to operate and that since he received the NAL, he no longer operates the radio equipment and has destroyed it. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,6 Section 1.80 of the Rules,7 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.8 In examining Mollinedo's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-562A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Elf's willful or repeated violation of Section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Elf Painting and Wallpapering SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-587A1.html
      • the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-587 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-587 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.theantennafarm.com/ References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-587A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-587A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-591A1.html
      • As previously noted, on January 18, 2006, OleumTech obtained an equipment authorization from the Commission. 8. In the instant case, we find that OleumTech apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator device prior to obtaining Commission equipment authorization. 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-606A1.html
      • 2005, the Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $14,000 to Gibson. Gibson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-655A1.html
      • receive fax advertising). The term "facsimile broadcaster" means "a person or entity that transmits messages to telephone facsimile machines on behalf of another person or entity for a fee." 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(4). 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(3)(ii); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Order on Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 16972 (2003). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-655 2 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-655 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-655A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-655A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-663A1.html
      • liability for violating Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules by transmitting references to his website could subject many amateur radio licensees to similar enforcement action merely for uttering a website address on their stations. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-664A1.html
      • on February 14, 2005 ("Response"). In the Response, Alpine states that the NAL is unenforceable against Alpine, and that the agent's assessments of the station's main studio were not consistent with the facts at the time of the inspection. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Alpine's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-749A1.html
      • any person." 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(7). 47 C.F.R. S 64.1601(e)(i). The rule's requirements are also fulfilled if the caller identification information substitutes the name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service telephone number. Id. 47 C.F.R. S 1601(e)(i). 47 C.F.R. S 1601(e)(ii). 47 C.F.R. S 1601(e)(iii). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-749 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06-749 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-749A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-749A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-74A1.html
      • to any person.'' 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(7). 12 47 C.F.R. 64.1601(e)(i). The rule's requirements are also fulfilled if the caller identification information substitutes the name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service telephone number. Id. 13 47 C.F.R. 1601(e)(i). 14 47 C.F.R. 1601(e)(ii). 15 47 C.F.R. 1601(e)(iii). 16 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3). References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-74A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-74A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-798A1.html
      • does not dispute its Rule violations but argues that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because it is now in compliance with the Rules and is unable to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the WLTH petition for reconsideration, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-841A1.html
      • Commission authority - from November 8, 2001 to January 11, 2006. Thus, it appears that NWN violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act,17 and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules,18 provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-853A1.html
      • cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture. Hawking argues that the upward adjustment proposed in the NAL is excessive, that it promptly remedied the violations and that it has a history of overall compliance. III. discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-861A1.html
      • the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Vitec marketed an intercom system that includes two types of uncertified transmitters (base station and mobile). Vitec's marketing of each uncertified transmitter is a separate violation. We find
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-867A1.html
      • ) Jacksonville, Florida FRN No. 0001587971 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 19, 2006 Released: April 20, 2006 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act") and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station WAWS(TV), Jacksonville, Florida, failed to conduct its "Win A Hot Rod for Dad" contest (the "Contest") substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, it appears that, contrary to the official announced rules of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-916A1.html
      • warranted. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 12. We have determined that Cbeyond has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Cbeyond apparently liable for $100,000. 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Cbeyond IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules and the CPNI Order, by failing to prepare and make available upon request a certificate that complies
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-933A1.html
      • act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Unicom's failures to respond occurred despite multiple attempts by Bureau staff to call Unicom's attention to the importance of responding to LOIs. We find that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-936A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Corry. Corry has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Corry Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 C.F.R. S 11.35(a). 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-937A1.html
      • in October 1999. Moreover, the record indicates, and Lamar does not dispute, that it did not transmit the required data (both the 911 caller's call back number and the cell site location) and thus did not provide compliant E911 Phase I service within six months of the Texas CSEC's valid request. 11. Under Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, any entity that willfully and repeatedly fails to comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator consciously and deliberately acted or failed to act, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's requirements,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-94A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,500 to GB Enterprises.3 GB Enterprises filed a response to the NAL on September 4, 2005, stating that it had corrected the violations cited in the NAL.4 III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of the Rules,6 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining GB Enterprises' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-996A1.html
      • an instrument of authorization, Criswell apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Criswell also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by filing its license renewal application on December 7, 2005, more than eighteen months beyond the 30-day requirement prescribed by the Rules. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-999A1.html
      • Spectrum Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $5,600 to OleumTech. OleumTech has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, OleumTech Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-104A1.html
      • violated a Commission order by failing to provide the information and documents the Bureau directed it to provide. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $97,500 is warranted against LocateCell for its apparent willful or repeated violations of our directive. 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, LocateCell IS NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $97,500 for willfully or repeatedly failing to respond fully to the Bureau's subpoena, as required by the Citation. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-124A1.html
      • 73.1350(a), 73.1560(b) and (d), and 73.1745(a). 47 C.F.R. S 11.35. 47 C.F.R. S 73.1015. 47 U.S.C. S 312(d). 47 C.F.R. S 1.91(d). 47 U.S.C. S 309(e). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. S 73.1015. 47 C.F.R. SS 73.1350(a), 73.1560(b) and (d), 73.1745(a). 47 C.F.R. S 11.35(a). See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6). See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, P 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.91, S 1.221. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.21(b). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.221(c). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(a).
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-127A1.html
      • LPSI's apparent nonpayment violations. We thus find LPSI apparently liable for a total proposed forfeiture of $329,000 for its apparent willful and repeated failure to make contributions into the USF. 17. Although the Commission typically downward adjusts a proposed forfeiture when a company voluntarily discloses a violation of our rules, we decline to do so today. Specifically, pursuant to section 1.80(b)(4) of our rules, the Commission has adjusted downward proposed forfeitures where a target of an investigation voluntarily disclosed its violations prior to the initiation of any investigative or enforcement actions. When deciding to discount a proposed forfeiture because of a regulatee's voluntary disclosure, the Commission reasonably expects the regulatee to take swift and effective corrective actions, and to comply with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-128A1.html
      • (D.C. Cir. 1993). See, e.g., Greater Muskegon Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15464, 15472-73, PP 22-23 (1996). 47 U.S.C. SS 312(a) and (c). 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311 and 1.91(a). 47 C.F.R. S 1.91(c). 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(c). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.17, 1.65. See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, P 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. S 312(d). 47 C.F.R. S 1.91(d). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-128 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-128 References
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-136A1.html
      • to the Commission's "red light rule" as a result of any non-payment detailed above and the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed by TMI in accordance with the Commission's rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S\001503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, TMI SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $237,992 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and Commission's rules. 25. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-138A1.html
      • totaling millions of dollars in withheld contributions. In light of the seriousness, duration and scope of the apparent violations, we find that the forfeiture of $1,133,761 proposed in the OCMC NAL is warranted. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, that OCMC, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $1,133,761 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 24. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-13A1.html
      • of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing unauthorized Class B digital devices in the United States. Within the last year specifically, which is the time period covered by this NAL, Behringer apparently marketed 50 models of unauthorized Class B digital devices in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture. 18. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Behringer's violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules were willful and repeated. 19. Section 1.80(b)(4)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-140A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 34 unsolicited advertisements to the 8 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that National Business Information Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $153,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), that National Business Information Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $153,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(3), and the related
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-151A1.html
      • to no objective criteria, and is not ... equivalent to a failure to comply with painting and lighting requirements." Radio X states further that the violation is "unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable on its face and as applied." We disagree. Neither the tower painting Rule set forth in Section 17.50 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between a painted or an unpainted antenna structure, and in both cases the base forfeiture amount of $10,000 is the starting point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. The Commission has explained that forfeiture amounts reflect "the degree of harm or potential for harm that may arise from the violation." As previously discussed, no tower
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-173A1.html
      • amended ("Act") and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Infinity Broadcasting Operations, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration, Telemundo of Los Angeles License Corporation' petition for reconsideration, and Radio One Licenses, LLC's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order ARE DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 35. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-174A1.html
      • allows the application of the public MPE limits, the licensee must provide appropriate signs warning the public of excessive RFR levels. Americom did not provide such signs. 15. We have examined Americom's application for review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, as well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Americom willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules and that the appropriate forfeiture amount is $10,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Americom's application for review of the Forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-17A1.html
      • need for and the legal basis of our ability, if any, to regulate in this area. We have invited the public to submit comments for our consideration, and are currently reviewing those comments and determining our next steps. IV. ordering clauses 233. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that NBC Telemundo License Co., licensee of Station KWHY-TV, Los Angeles, California is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $32,500 for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. S 1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules by its October 9, 2004, broadcast of the movie "Con El Corazon En La Mano." 234.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-186A1.html
      • which payment was already due, by filing with each PSP any overdue call data reports for payphone calls it has completed, and for providing each PSP any overdue statements of an officer certifying payment accuracy and completeness. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 21. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $466,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-18A1.html
      • APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 21, 2006 Released: March 15, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Tate issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that the CBS Television Network ("CBS") affiliated stations and CBS owned-and-operated stations listed in Attachment A aired material that apparently violates the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent material. Specifically, during the Our Sons and Daughters episode of the CBS program "Without a Trace" on December 31, 2004, at 9:00 p.m. in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-19A1.html
      • ) BOWL XXXVIII HALFTIME SHOW ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2006 Released: March 15, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Tate issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), issued pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we impose a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $550,000 against CBS Corporation ("CBS"), as the licensee or the ultimate parent company of the licensees of the television stations listed in the Appendix ("CBS Stations"). We find that CBS violated 18 U.S.C. S 1464 and the Commission's rule regulating the broadcast of indecent material in its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-22A1.html
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 98 unsolicited advertisements to the 37 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that First Choice Healthcare, Inc. is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $776,500. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), that First Choice Healthcare, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $776,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-30A1.html
      • of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Therefore, the forfeiture amount proposed herein takes into account the continuing nature San Jose's apparent violations, but relates to the company's marketing of Models RA-45, RA-46, RK-104 and RK-304 within the last year. 13. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the marketing of unauthorized equipment. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In determining the appropriate forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-37A1.html
      • been properly analyzed by the Commission." ACR also notes that it "has had a long history of compliance with Commission rules," and further contends that the "quantum" of the proposed forfeiture was unreasonable. III. discussion 8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-48A1.html
      • II service in response to valid PSAP requests in violation of Section 20.18(f) of the Rules in 41 instances. We note that 25 of these 50 violations occurred in markets in which DCS is the system licensee, and 25 occurred in markets in which ACC is the system licensee. B. Proposed Forfeiture 55. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, Dobson's apparent violations of Section 20.18(d) and (f) of the Rules were willful and repeated. 56. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-49A1.html
      • 2003 TRS program contribution when due; (3) a total penalty of $50,000 for filing an inaccurate annual worksheet; and (4) a total penalty of $150,000 for failing to submit quarterly and annual worksheets. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 49. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, that Globcom, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $715,031 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 50. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007.html
      • [636]CompUSA, Inc. 06-06-2007 CITATION [637]Circuit City Stores, Inc., Richmond, VA 06-06-2007 CITATION [638]Best Buy, Inc. Richfield, MN 06-05-2007 CITATION [639]East Coast Roofing aka Flat Roof Specialist 06-05-2007 CITATION [640]All Sports & Collectibles aka Warrior Custom Golf 06-04-2007 ORDER [641]Burke's Garden Telephone Company, Inc. 06-04-2007 CITATION [642]Soft Touch 06-04-2007 CITATION [643]Galaxie Lumber 06-04-2007 CITATION [644]Chiarello Investment 06-01-2007 ORDER [645]Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules: Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 06-01-2007 M.O.&O. [646]The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. 06-01-2007 FORFEITURE ORDER [647]Behringer USA, Inc. 06-01-2007 CITATION [648]Recourse Communications 06-01-2007 CITATION [649]One Stop Motors 06-01-2007 CITATION [650]Alliance Healthcare LLC 05-31-2007 NAL [651]Ted Sakaida & Sons, Inc., Van Nuys, California
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1058A1.html
      • ) Wheeling, West Virginia FRN No. 0011339769 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 6, 2007 Released: March 6, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that RCK 1 Group, LLC (the "Licensee"), Licensee of Station WKKX(AM) Wheeling, West Virginia, (the "Station") apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by broadcasting a live telephone conversation without giving prior notice to the individual being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on review of the facts and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1073A1.html
      • we do not find this to be a reasonable excuse for the Station's failure to provide access to the public inspection file. To condone excuses such as this one would render the public inspection process meaningless. 10. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that the Station apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Commission's rules. Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In its LOI Response, Gaston College requests that if the Bureau determines that a violation occurred, it impose an admonishment rather than a forfeiture. In support of this request, Gaston College cites Tabback Broadcasting and American Family Association, each an admonishment against a radio station
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1271A1.html
      • equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Mann admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that The Antique Radio Collector apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. 5. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1285A1.html
      • 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 20 months without an instrument of authorization, Imperial apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Imperial also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1300A1.html
      • ("Norfolk Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $7,000 to TPN. TPN has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, The Paradise Network of North Carolina, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Sections 17.57 and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1301A1.html
      • Orleans Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Ace. Ace has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ace Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1312A1.html
      • cancelled because the amount exceeds other forfeiture amounts proposed to broadcast stations under similar scenarios; that KM TV has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that KM TV has demonstrated an inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining KM TV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1313A1.html
      • 4, 2006, stating he was unable to obtain a copy of the catalog referenced in the NAL from Commission staff and argues that the refusal to provide him a copy of the catalog was a denial of due process. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Vance's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1375A1.html
      • Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $11,000 to Community. Community submitted a late-filed response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the forfeiture, which was received by the Dallas Office on March 22, 2007. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Community's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1407A1.html
      • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Amp'd Mobile, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Amp'd Mobile, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Amp'd Mobile, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1408A1.html
      • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that KLM has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find KLM apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KLM IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1409A1.html
      • CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Easterbrooke Cellular has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Easterbrooke Cellular apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Easterbrooke Cellular Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1412A1.html
      • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that CTC has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find CTC apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CTC Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1413A1.html
      • 10. We have determined that Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shoreham Telephone Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1414A1.html
      • NAL. V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses 10. We have determined that PriorityOne has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1415A1.html
      • 10. We have determined that Oneida County Rural Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain an adequate compliance statement in accordance with the rule. We find Oneida apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Oneida County Rural Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1417A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. 1^st United's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. 1^st United will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1419A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Burke's Garden's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Burke's Garden will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1420A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Connect's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Connect will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1421A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Habla's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Habla will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1422A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Manning's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Manning will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1423A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. PhoneCo's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. PhoneCo will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments in response
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1433A1.html
      • operating its PLMRS station for approximately 5 years without an instrument of authorization, Mitchell Electric apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Mitchell Electric also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1436A1.html
      • that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, that it took steps to ensure that it came into compliance with Rules after the inspection by the Los Angeles agent and, consequently, the NAL should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1451A1.html
      • Commission authorization from October 27, 2005, to May 2, 2006. By operating its earth station for approximately six months without authorization, DirecTV apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. DirecTV also apparently violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1472A1.html
      • did not intentionally violate the Rules, and that he took steps after the issuance of the Notice, and again after the issuance of the NAL, to ensure that the operation of the ELT was in compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1473A1.html
      • 2006 ("Response"). Based on our review of Amaturo's Response and the record, we find that Amaturo did not willfully and repeatedly violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) issued to Amaturo Group of L.A., Ltd., in the May 31, 2006, Notice of Apparent Liability for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1477A1.html
      • broadcast stations with partially complete public inspection files; that Una Vez has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and that Una Vez took steps to correct the violation after the inspection by a Los Angeles Office agent. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Una Vez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1478A1.html
      • Entravision filed a response ("Response") on July 4, 2006, arguing that the antenna structure is not required to be painted, and that that the top white strobe light on the structure had not been experiencing malfunctions since August 2005. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1482A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Junior Lahens Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1486A1.html
      • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Parker submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Parker's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1548A1.html
      • this Act." Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered GGP to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice GGP failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1602A1.html
      • 2004 to June 26, 2006. By operating its PLMRS stations for approximately two years without authorization, CLP apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. CLP also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the stations. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-163A1.html
      • amount from $10,000 to $1,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Spiry's petition for reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent set forth above. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mr. Spiry IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-165A1.html
      • ("Dallas Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Unique. Unique has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Unique Broadcasting, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-166A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to A Radio. A Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, A Radio Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1672A1.html
      • this Act." Pursuant to that authority, the Bureau twice ordered RSDC to submit a timely written response to its LOIs and to provide the information and documents requested. Twice RSDC failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1673A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1673 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.audio-direct.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1673A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1674A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 1 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1674 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.buy.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1674A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1675A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 1 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1675 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.audiodiscounters.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1675A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1676A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 1 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1676 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1676A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-167A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Abreu submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Abreu's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1686A1.html
      • to September 1, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately two years without authorization, JSMC apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. JSMC also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1753A1.html
      • S 2.1205(a). See Section 2.1204(a)(4) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(a)(4). Section 2.1203(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1203(a), permits the importation of a radiofrequency device only if "the importer or ultimate consignee, or their designated customs broker, declares that the device meets one of the conditions for entry set out in this section." See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1753A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1754A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1754 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.chumbo.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1754A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1756A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1756 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.compsource.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1756A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1757A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1757 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.cybergiftcenter.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1757A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1758A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1758 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dealznet.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1758A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1760A1.html
      • of the Act or Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. Vitec also contends that, if there is a basis for a monetary forfeiture, the $11,200 forfeiture amount assessed in the Forfeiture Order is excessive. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 9. Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1763A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1763 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1763A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1764A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1764A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1766A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1766 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.fadfusion.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1766A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1767A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.ambientweather.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1767A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1779A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Pierre-Francois. Mr. Pierre-Francois has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean-Harry Pierre-Francois IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1780A1.html
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Wilson submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Wilson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1784A1.html
      • and only "theoretically harmful." As such, AboCom further asserts that the marketing of the wireless access points has not been shown to be part of a deliberate plan to evade or disregard the rules. III. discussion 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining AboCom's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1788A1.html
      • and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. Siga Broadcasting submitted a response to the NALs requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Siga Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1812A1.html
      • the forfeiture amount, claiming that its failure to renew its license was "due to ignorance," and was "an oversight," and "not a premeditated act." Hare Planting also states that "[f]ifty-two hundred dollars is a lot of money to us." III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 6. We
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1828A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1828 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1828 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1828A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1828A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1867A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not currently establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing-aid compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-186A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Rankine. Rankine has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-187A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Simpson. Simpson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Elroy Simpson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1883A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1883 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1883 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1883A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1883A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-188A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the petition for waiver filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DENIED, and the petition for reconsideration filed by Statcom Communications Corporation IS DISMISSED. 10. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1919A1.html
      • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 2 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1919 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1919A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1920A1.html
      • of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Colleen K. Heitkamp Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Enclosures Copies of the subpoena and cover letter are attached. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 2 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1920 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1920A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-192A1.html
      • raised no new arguments for us to address herein. We also find no reason to cancel the forfeiture based on Mr. Brown's decision to discontinue the station's operation. We have, however, examined the financial documentation submitted with Mr. Brown's petition and will reconsider the forfeiture amount pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b) of the Act , Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In analyzing a financial hardship claim, the Commission generally has looked to gross revenues as a reasonable and appropriate yardstick in determining whether a licensee is able to pay the assessed forfeiture. While we find that Mr. Brown
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1977A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. HRN submitted a response to the NAL requesting rescission or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining HRN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1979A1.html
      • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Roberts submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Roberts' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1995A1.html
      • by the Riverside Police Department. Fed Ex also argues that the violation was not repeated, because Fed Ex was able to resolve the interference the same day it was notified of the interference by the Los Angeles FCC agent. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-1996A1.html
      • filed a response ("Response") on October 25, 2006, admitting the violation of Section 73.49, providing evidence that an effective fence now enclosed the antenna structure, and requesting that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Ortega and Juarez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2046A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2046 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2046 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2046A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2046A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2047A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2047 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2047 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2047A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2047A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2056A1.html
      • 2006." By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 13 months without an instrument of authorization, Doss apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Doss also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 2. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2069A1.html
      • clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Jerry Russell dba The Russell Company IS DISMISSED. 9. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2083A1.html
      • 28, 2006. By operating its PLMRS station for almost four years without authorization, Kimberly Clark apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Kimberly Clark also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 2. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2085A1.html
      • registration in March 2002, completed construction in April 2002, filed for tower registration in May 2002, and did not complete registration of the tower until August 10, 2006. By failing to register its tower prior to construction and for more than four years thereafter, Telcom apparently violated Section 17.4(a)(1) of the Rules. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2094A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to New Relampago. New Relampago has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, New Relampago Car Service Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 3. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2095A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mobile. Mobile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mobile Car Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-210A1.html
      • Taxicab for the noted violations. In its Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, Portland Taxicab does not dispute the violations but again seeks a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its inability to pay the $12,000 forfeiture. III DISCUSSION 6. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules require that the Commission take into account, among other things, the party's ability to pay a forfeiture. A successful claim to reduce a forfeiture for inability to pay requires specific supporting financial documentation. In analyzing economic-hardship claims, the Commission generally looks to a company's gross revenues from the three most recent tax years as a reasonable and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2118A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-211A1.html
      • Oaks' petition for reconsideration as untimely. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Act, and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules, the letter petition for reconsideration filed by David Michael Oaks IS DISMISSED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-212A1.html
      • for a $4,000 forfeiture as proposed by the NAL. On December 17, 2004, Mr. Gordon filed a Petition for Reconsideration restating the same arguments he made in his response to the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Gordon's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2135A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2135 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2135 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2135A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2135A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2136A1.html
      • ("Response") on November 27, 2006, arguing that it was in the process of ordering new EAS equipment prior to the inspection by the San Francisco Office, and that the forfeiture should be cancelled based on Gla-Mar's inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Gla-Mar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2137A1.html
      • the violation was neither willful nor repeated, and requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KSPZ antenna towers, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Sandhill's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2138A1.html
      • studio for KHLU-LP; that HTV will have financial difficulty paying the forfeiture amount; and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on HTV's history of compliance and its good faith effort to maintain a main studio for KHLU-LP. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining HTV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-213A1.html
      • Mr. Clay seeks dismissal of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay the forfeiture amount, and the fact that the equipment has been destroyed or sold. He has provided personal financial information to support his inability to pay claim. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement "). In examining Mr. Clay's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2150A1.html
      • access to NPTC's poles without a formal agreement in the event that NPTC fails to timely complete a just and reasonable pole attachment agreement. Complaint at 10-11, P 34. Salsgiver Telecom also requests that the Commission impose penalties and sanctions, and grant an award of damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. SS 206-209, 501, 503(a), (b) and 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1413, 1.80. Complaint at 10-11, P 34. We address these requests in Section III.D., infra. See, e.g., Response at 6, 12 PP 14, 41, 43-44. Although section 224(f)(2) explicitly permits denial of access "where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes," 47 U.S.C. S 224(f)(2), NPTC's denial of access does not rest on any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2235A1.html
      • WQFD608. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately one year without an instrument of authorization, Sakaida apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Sakaida also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 3. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-223A1.html
      • EAS equipment and failure to maintain a main studio. In its petition, Playa del Sol does not dispute the violations but instead seeks rescission or reduction of the forfeiture, claiming an inability to pay. II. DISCUSSION 2. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Playa del Sol's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-224A1.html
      • Mr. Martin had made preparations for painting the tower. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin had not provided a sufficiently detailed description and dates of the unfavorable weather conditions which delayed the painting. However, after taking into consideration all of the statutory factors described in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), the Bureau reduced the proposed forfeiture amount from $10,000 to eight thousand dollars ($8,000) on the basis of Mr. Martin `s history of overall compliance. The Bureau also found that Mr. Martin successfully substantiated a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2300A1.html
      • and the record, we find that Burke's Garden did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Burke's Garden Telephone Company, Inc., in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-230A1.html
      • Blountstown's inability to pay and its record of compliance. In support of these contentions, Blountstown submitted affidavits, relevant broadcast station daily log sheets, as well as its Federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Blountstown's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-232A1.html
      • information to the Commission upon request. Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. 11. We have examined Rama's Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2349A1.html
      • the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. M.R.S. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining M.R.S.' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2351A1.html
      • statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2351 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 6, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.target.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2351A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2356A1.html
      • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2356 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.bestbuy.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2356A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2364A1.html
      • concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Joe D. Edge, Esquire Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2364 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2364A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2369A1.html
      • false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Robert S. Schwartz Constantine Cannon LLP 1627 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2369 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 06, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.circuitcity.com/ 2. http://www.circuitcity.com/ 3. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2369A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2370A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2370 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2370A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2378A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2378 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.target.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2378A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2383A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2383 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2383A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2384A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2384 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2384A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2385A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2385 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2385A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2386A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2386 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 7, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.sears.com/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2386A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2442A1.html
      • exhibit antenna structure #1013937's red obstruction lighting from sunset to sunrise. Multicultural filed a response ("Response") on January 23, 2007, arguing that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on Multicultural's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Multicultural's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2443A1.html
      • January 18, 2007, arguing that an admonishment, rather than the base forfeiture amount, should be issued for that violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because Gold Coast has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Gold Coast's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2444A1.html
      • NAL, and that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Finally, if a forfeiture is imposed, Payne asks for a personal interview and/or a hearing with a Commission official at the nearest field office to discuss the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Payne's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2451A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2451 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2451 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2451A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2451A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2466A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2466 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2466A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2523A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2523 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2523A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2534A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2534 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2534 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2534A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2534A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2551A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to L4 Media. L4 Media has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, L4 Media Group, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2552A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $7,000 to Mr. Konarz. Mr. Konarz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Konarz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2554A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 12, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.thenerds.net/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2554A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2589A1.html
      • the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2589 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 13, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www.prestigecamera.com/ 2. http://www.prestigecamera.com/ 3. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2589A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2612A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2612 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2612 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2612A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2612A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2614A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2614 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 June 14, 2007 References Visible links 1. http://www/ 2. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2614A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2657A1.html
      • should be reduced based on its history of compliance. Finally, Del Rosario Talpa states that it requested an STA to operate from its current location on October 24, 2006 and that this STA was granted on November 7, 2006. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Del Rosario Talpa's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2658A1.html
      • agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2659A1.html
      • agent; and that the amount of the forfeiture should be reduced consistent with similar cases, and because of KITZ Radio's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, as well as its good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining KITZ Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2666A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2666 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2666 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2666A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2666A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2705A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2705 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2705 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2705A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2705A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2749A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified herein. We have further determined that Global QA Corp. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2827A1.html
      • computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 (nine thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2852A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that New England Industrial Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2853A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Infasource.com is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(C), sections
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2994A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2994 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2994A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-299A1.html
      • 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules by marketing the RMR-C450 device, which is not eligible for a grant of equipment certification because it produces a radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at 11.23 GHz, and which produces emissions that substantially exceed the radiated emission limits for intentional radiators. A. Proposed Forfeiture 11. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3011A1.html
      • that authority, the Bureau three times ordered Yellow Cab to submit a timely written response to its letters of inquiry and to provide the information requested. Three times Yellow Cab failed to respond as directed. It is well settled that a party cannot ignore the directives in a Bureau letter of inquiry. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-304A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-304 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-304A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-307A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-307 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-307A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-308A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.jammercity.com/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-308A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3098A1.html
      • of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Winton submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Winton's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3099A1.html
      • ("Atlanta Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Brenau. Brenau has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Brenau University Network IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-309A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-309 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-309A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-310A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-310 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-310A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-311A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-311 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-311A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-312A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-312 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-312A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-313A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "Emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-313 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-313A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-320A1.html
      • his request for reduction or elimination of the forfeiture based on an inability to pay. The financial information provided is a set of tax returns for Rejoice. No financial information for Mr. Neely himself is provided. 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Neely's Petition for Reconsideration, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-321A1.html
      • Sections 2.906, 2.909 and 2.1071 through 2.1077 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.SS 2.906, 2.909, and 2.1071 through 2.1077. Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to One-O-One iSolutions, Inc. (October 2, 2006). Letter from Christoph Goeltner, to Gabriel Collazo, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 5, 2006). See Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-321 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-321A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-322A1.html
      • Order. We reject Greenwood's unsupported claims that it was not in violation. 10. Third, Greenwood asserts that the assessed $7,000 forfeiture amount "equates this situation with a circumstance in which there is no fence at all. . . ." Neither the tower fencing rule set forth in Section 73.49 of the Rules, nor the forfeiture amount set forth in Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules distinguishes between an antenna structure that is enclosed within an ineffective locked fence, and one that has no fence at all. In both cases the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is not the maximum amount that may be assessed, but merely the starting point from which the forfeiture amount is derived. In assessing forfeiture amounts, Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3235A1.html
      • Arias, Blackstone, to Carla Conover, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated December 20, 2004. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19898 (Enf. Bur. 2005). See Response of Blackstone Calling Card, Inc. dated April 20, 2006 ("Response"), at 2. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. S: 1464). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). After a citation has issued, no additional citation with respect to the conduct of the type detailed in the citation is necessary before notice and penalty proceedings may ensue. Id. Id. (Continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07- 3235
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3238A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. McCollum. Mr. McCollum has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Thomas McCollum IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3266A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3266 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3266A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3270A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3270 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3270A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3281A1.html
      • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that Mechanicsville Telephone Company has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Mechanicsville Telephone Company apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, MECHANICHVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3282A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that CyberData, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that CyberData, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand, five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3291A1.html
      • have determined that Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Audio-Video Corporation d/b/a A-1 Communications apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, AUDIO-VIDEO CORPORATION D/B/A A-1 COMMUNICATIONS IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3299A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least five unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $22,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3351A1.html
      • as the material's sponsor. See also note 8, supra. Although in this case certain broadcast stations actually aired the subject material, this is not a prerequisite to a finding of violation of Section 507(c). That provision states that disclosure is required whenever any person supplies program material "which is intended for broadcast...." 47 U.S.C. S: 507(c). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3351 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3351A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3372A1.html
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 3 unsolicited advertisements to the 3 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3374A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Aras Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3375A1.html
      • the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering the unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message identified above. We have further determined that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 0.111, 0.311, that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3392A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3392 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3392A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3393A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3393 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3393A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3408A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3408 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3408A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3411A1.html
      • documents and provide them to the Commission. Taking into account all of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we therefore conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $50,000 is warranted for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets. 21. Turning now to COI's failure to provide documentation and respond to the Bureau's LOI, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its response would be timely submitted. In fact,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3412A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred following two extension requests by ITE of the required response deadline, repeated
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3442A1.html
      • amount of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) for the apparent willful violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. On November 11, 2006, the Norfolk Office received Mr. Smallwood's response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. discussion 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Smallwood's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3483A1.html
      • energy by radiation or induction. Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1(c), defines a spurious emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information." RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8. Id. at 1338. Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3483 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3483A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3540A1.html
      • quarter. Based on our review of Georgia Eagle's response to the NALs and the record, we cancel the NALs and admonish Georgia Eagle for failing to make available complete public inspection files for the three stations on May 9, 2007. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the instant Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. Nos. 20073248010, 200732480011, and 200732480012 ARE CANCELLED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Georgia Eagle Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of stations WCEH(AM), WRPG(FM), and WQXZ(FM) IS ADMONISHED for its violations of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be sent by regular
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3581A1.html
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone ("Connect" or "Company"). Connect violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. Connect acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On March 27, 2007, the Bureau issued to Connect a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on Connect's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave Connect the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3582A1.html
      • 10. We have determined that Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Connect apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Connect Paging, Inc. d/b/a Get A Phone IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3583A1.html
      • monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against PhoneCo, LP ("PhoneCo" or "Company"). PhoneCo violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. PhoneCo acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to PhoneCo a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on PhoneCo's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave PhoneCo the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a response to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3584A1.html
      • clauses 10. We have determined that Capital Telecommunications, Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain an adequate CPNI compliance certificate in accordance with the rule. We find Capital Telecommunications, Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, CAPTIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3597A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Emile. Emile has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marcel Emile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3599A1.html
      • January 31, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to RMR. RMR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Rocky Mountain Radar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3613A1.html
      • instrument of authorization, Hmong American apparently violated Section 301 of the Act. Hmong American also acted in apparent violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. In addition, we note that, to date, Hmong American still has not filed a renewal application. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3638A1.html
      • NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On June 8, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received M.R.S.' petition for reconsideration on July 7, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining M.R.S.' petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3643A1.html
      • proposed forfeiture. On April 23, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order, in which the Bureau addressed the three NALs. The Bureau received Wilson's petition for reconsideration on May 23, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Wilson's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3697A1.html
      • GGP asserted that the failure to file a timely renewal application by its Brass Mill Center in Waterbury, Connecticut, was an isolated and inadvertent incident and that it has an otherwise broad history of overall compliance with the rules. III. discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 6. We
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3706A1.html
      • also permissible under Section 25.118(a)(1) of the Rules. Again, however, under Section 25.118(a), notification of such modification must be provided within 30 days of the modification. Walgreens violated Section 25.118(a) in both instances by failing to provide notice to the Commission of Modifications 2 and 3 within the requisite 30-day time period. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3734A1.html
      • ordering clauses 10. We have determined that River City Wireless has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find River City Wireless apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, River City Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-374A1.html
      • and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Citicasters apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by failing to notify a party to a telephone conversation of its intent to record and broadcast their conversation. 9. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of this type is $4,000. In addition, the Commission rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-375A1.html
      • the proposed forfeiture and issued the Forfeiture Order. On December 4, 2006, A Radio filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture associated with its violation of Section 73.49 of the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A Radio's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-376A1.html
      • response to the NAL stating that it had corrected the public file and antenna structure registration violations and requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Flagship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3843A1.html
      • at a greatly reduced power, which greatly reduced its revenue. One Mart also asks that we take into consideration its good faith efforts to replace the EAS equipment, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining One Mart's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3845A1.html
      • ("Norfolk Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Wise. Wise has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Radio Wise, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3868A1.html
      • response ("Response") on July 16, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture amount should be cancelled because BEC is no longer the licensee of KICA(AM) and KKYC(FM), and that BEC rectified the violation after the inspection by the Denver Office. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining BEC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3869A1.html
      • apparently willfully and repeatedly operated station KODL(AM) at an unauthorized location. Larson-Wynn filed a response ("Response") on March 27, 2007, arguing that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled based on Larson-Wynn's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Larson-Wynn's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3870A1.html
      • ("Response") on March 26, 2007, arguing that the fences had been removed from the towers to eliminate the overgrowth of weeds underneath the towers. Pereira also requested that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Pereira's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3880A1.html
      • presented in the NAL, and argues that the forfeiture should be rescinded because 3ABN immediately took steps to correct the EAS issues. 3ABN also requests that we reduce the forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining 3ABN's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3913A1.html
      • 2004, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order, which reduced the forfeiture to $12,000 based on Delta's history of compliance with the rules. The Bureau received Delta's petition for reconsideration on November 1, 2004, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Delta's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3927A1.html
      • requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. On July 12, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Mr. Winton's petition for reconsideration on July 30, 2007, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Winton's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-3974A1.html
      • "[e]missions on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The 1.2 GHz wireless camera purposely transmits RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3974A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4005A1.html
      • 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case, which represents the base amount for the cablecast transmitted by CN8 on September 21, 2006. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL PAY the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4016A1.html
      • to provide any response whatsoever to the Bureau's LOI. We therefore conclude that Liberty Phones' continuing failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of Commission orders. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 8. We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for Liberty Phones' willful and repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Liberty Phones' total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response and its grant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4017A1.html
      • for the unauthorized transfer of control of Telesphere's international section 214 authorization to Rally. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $16,000 against Rally is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. IT IS Further ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Rally Capital, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 63.03 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4019A1.html
      • the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. We propose a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for UMCC's willful or repeated failure to respond to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that UMCC's total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the Bureau's multiple attempts to obtain the company's response, warrants a substantial increase
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4027A1.html
      • its Response, MRA argues that its overpower operation was inadvertent, that it took action to bring the station into compliance immediately after the Los Angeles Office's inspection, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining MRA's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4029A1.html
      • CVC filed a response ("Response") to the NAL on April 18, 2007. In its Response, CVC asks for mitigation of the forfeiture based of its ability to pay, as well as its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining CVC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4030A1.html
      • arguing that there were extenuating circumstances outside of PSETV's control that resulted in the violation, and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced based on PSETV's good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and its history of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining PSETV's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4037A1.html
      • March 15, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $5,200 to Imperial. Imperial has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Imperial Sugar Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand two hundred dollars ($5,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903(a) and 1.949(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4075A1.html
      • each of the four apparent violations of Section 76.1615. Consequently, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 for the cablecasts transmitted by CN8 on September 26 and 28, and October 3, 2006. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Comcast Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 76.1615 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Comcast Corporation SHALL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4098A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Venali, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Venali, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4099A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4133A1.html
      • pay the forfeiture in installments. Although it submitted a good faith payment of $400, as of September 24, 2007, Unique failed to submit all of the required financial documentation and its request for an installment payment plan was denied. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Unique's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4270A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4283A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." We also noted that it is a matter of public safety for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4287A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4288A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4291A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4292A1.html
      • forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we must take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the analog-only tuner labeling requirements. In adopting the Consumer Alert labeling requirements, the Commission stated that "[a]ccurate communication of this impending change is a highly material disclosure for consumers contemplating the purchase of a television." The Commission also noted that it is a matter of public safety
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4305A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mario's Roofing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4306A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Alliance Capital Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4339A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4371A1.html
      • By operating its PLMRS station for almost two and one-half years without authorization, Five Star apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Five Star also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4374A1.html
      • admits that it did not receive a grant of certification for this equipment until to April 3, 2007. Therefore, we find that MRC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 90.203 of the Rules by marketing 4.9 GHz aeronautical transmitting equipment prior to obtaining certification. 6. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4449A1.html
      • Shopping to Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (August 18, 2007). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4449 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4449A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4481A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their individual
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-451A1.html
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Eagle West. Despite repeated contacts by the San Diego Office, Eagle West has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-452A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $14,000 to Kaltenbach. Despite repeated contacts by the Los Angeles Office, Kaltenbach has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jason Kaltenbach d/b/a Metamerchant, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4570A1.html
      • an equipment certification prior to marketing. Mr. Ryan admits, however, that there is no certification for these devices. Therefore, we find that Low Power Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator prior to obtaining Commission equipment certification. 5. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4583A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $17,000 to Diaz. Diaz has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jairo Diaz IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4590A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Troescher Typing Service is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Troescher Typing Service is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4627A1.html
      • April 12, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $9,200 to RSDC. RSDC has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, RSDC of Michigan, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nine thousand, two hundred dollars ($9,200) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4630A1.html
      • 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,500 to Yellow Cab. Yellow Cab has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Yellow Cab Leasing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand, five hundred dollars ($10,500) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act and Sections 1.903 and 1.949(a) of the Rules and for willfully and repeatedly failing to respond to a Bureau order. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4652A1.html
      • least two Telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that See Through Windows is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4678A1.html
      • this explicit direction, Spectracom has provided no documentation to support its claim of inability to pay and therefore this defense must be rejected. 8. Spectracom's NAL Response does not otherwise dispute the forfeiture calculations described in detail in the NAL. We therefore affirm the forfeiture calculation and methodology set forth in the NAL. Applying the factors set forth in Section 1.80 and Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act to the instant case, we conclude that Spectracom is liable for a $12,000 forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Spectracom, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4679A1.html
      • the forfeiture penalty proposed in the NAL. For these reasons, we hereby impose a forfeiture of $17,500 for C5 Communication's violations of Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, C5 Communications, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $17,500 for willfully violating Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4716A1.html
      • that it "does not possess or offer" fully-assembled AMT3000 transmitters but only offers a service, the assembly of AM transmitter kits made available by the manufacturer. Thus, asserts Antique Radio Collection, it neither violated the Act nor the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 7. We
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4720A1.html
      • met the requirements of Section 1.106(b)(2) of the Rules. Its petition for reconsideration must therefore be dismissed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1.106(b)(2) and (3) of the Rules, Americom's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's MO&O IS DISMISSED. 17. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card through the Commission's Debt and Credit Management Center at
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4745A1.html
      • with a label detailing the performance rating of the handset and with associated packaging that describes the technical specifications of the handset and the U-rating system. Id. See also Wireless Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. See Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 7184. Id. Id. Id. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3). Continued from previous page Continued... Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4745 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4745A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4776A1.html
      • Ordering Clauses 10. We have determined that Dialaround Enterprises Inc. has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a certification in compliance with the rule. We find Dialaround Enterprises Inc. apparently liable for $100,000. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DIALAROUND ENTERPRISES INC. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e). 12. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4874A1.html
      • affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS intercept device (which operates in the 1575.42 MHz band) and the 1.2/2.4 GHz wireless camera intentionally transmit RF energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. S: 302(c); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4874 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4874A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4907A1.html
      • appropriate for its apparent violation of the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310. Based on the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that an aggregate proposed forfeiture of $24,000 against Satamatics is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Satamatics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000) for willfully violating Section 214, 310(b)(4), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4922A1.html
      • ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 5, 2007, by Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS DENIED. 10. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Eagle West Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violations of Section 11.35 of the Rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4935A1.html
      • the forfeiture. IV. ordering clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED. 9. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Community Broadcast Group, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules 10. Payment of the forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4938A1.html
      • of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Bazile submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Bazile's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4992A1.html
      • KAZN(AM) ) Facility ID No. 10825 Pasadena, California ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 13, 2007 Released: December 13, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC ("Multicultural"), licensee of Station KAZN(AM), Pasadena, California (the "Station"), liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for its repeated and willful violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to "fully and accurately disclose the material terms of contest[s] . . . and conduct
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4A1.html
      • amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. On December 15, 2006, Russell submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Russell's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5004A1.html
      • Provo, Utah FRN No. 0010028835 ) ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 14, 2007 Released: December 17, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that 3 Point Media - Salt Lake City, LLC ("3 Point Media"), licensee of Station KHTB(FM), Provo, Utah, broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of the facts,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-502A1.html
      • apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 of the Rules and the apparent willful violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Long Pond submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Long Pond's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5051A1.html
      • that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC's petition for reconsideration of the February 6, 2007 Forfeiture Order IS hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 23. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Entravision Holdings, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. 24. Payment of the $10,000 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5084A1.html
      • 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the request for reconsideration filed by Florida Food Products, Inc. IS DENIED. 6. Payment of the three thousand dollar ($3,000) forfeiture assessed by the Forfeiture Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5090A1.html
      • actions were not "willful" under Section 301 of the Act. It also asserts that the Commission is barred from assessing a forfeiture for violation of Section 1.949(a) (failure to file a timely renewal application) on statute of limitations grounds. III. discussion 9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 10. We
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5105A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $23,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $23,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-5107A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-548A1.html
      • the measurements made by the Honolulu agents. Instead, Visionary argues that it did not willfully violate the Commission's RFR rules, and that it believed, in good faith, its site was in a remote non-accessible area with adequate warning signs. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Visionary's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-549A1.html
      • limits. Entravision also argues that the alleged violation was neither willful nor repeated, and that it made good faith efforts to comply with the requests made by Tampa Office agents during and after the inspections conducted by that office. III. discussion 13. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Entravision's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-550A1.html
      • roof; that the alleged violation was not willful, as Infinity had no prior knowledge of the RFR violations at the Park Tower site; and that the Tampa Office incorrectly assessed an upward adjustment of the forfeiture amount against Infinity. III. discussion 14. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Infinity's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-559A1.html
      • stated in the response that documentation in support of his request would be submitted under separate cover. To date, no such documentation has been submitted. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,Gary Toussaint IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. S 301. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-643A1.html
      • operations. By operating its earth station for approximately nine months without an instrument of authorization, La Carpa has apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. La Carpa also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by allowing its license to lapse without renewal. 6. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-667A1.html
      • and procedures should be modified or eliminated. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW 2. The Commission identified the following rule parts containing regulations administered by the Enforcement Bureau for review and comment in the Public Notice: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.711 and 1.720 to 1.736 set forth rules for the filing of formal complaints against common carriers. Sections 1.80 and 1.89 of the Commission's rules address forfeiture proceedings and penalties and Notice of Violations proceedings. Increased competition in the marketplace does not diminish the need for these rules, and thus we do not find that they are no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between telecommunications service providers. Accordingly, we find that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-673A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Duckworth submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Duckworth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-811A1.html
      • The Enforcement Bureau reduced the forfeiture amount from $21,000 to $16,800, based on 127, Inc.'s history of compliance with the Rules. 127, Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order requesting further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining 127, Inc.'s petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-862A1.html
      • pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo's Petition for Reconsideration, filed February 13, 2006, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 6. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Jose A. Mollinedo IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-870A1.html
      • any prior forfeitures or violations. Finally, we also decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture based on WADV's history of compliance. WADV previously has received three Notices of Violation, two of which included violations for over-powered operation. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, WADV Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-879A1.html
      • however, that imposition of the full forfeiture amount would impose a financial hardship on him and his spouse. In support of his inability to pay claim, Mr. Granda submitted federal tax returns for the relevant three year period. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act , and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Granda's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-881A1.html
      • amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Mr. Metzger submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Metzger's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-882A1.html
      • of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Rama submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its remedial good faith efforts to comply with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Rama's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-885A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-885 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-885 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-885A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-885A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-893A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-893 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-893 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-893A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-893A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-894A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-894 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-894 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-894A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-894A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-896A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-896 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-896 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-896A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-896A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-897A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-897 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-897 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-897A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-897A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-903A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-903 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-903 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-903A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-903A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-904A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-904 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-904 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-904A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-904A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-905A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-905 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-905 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-905A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-905A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-908A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-908 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-908 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-908A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-908A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-925A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-925 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-925 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-925A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-925A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-926A1.html
      • beyond the parameters of the station's authorization. Lockheed Martin concedes that it operated earth station E970322 without Commission authorization constantly and regularly from April 4, 2006 through June 7, 2006. By operating its earth station without authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. 1. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-929A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-929 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-929 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-929A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-929A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-930A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-930 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-930 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-930A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-930A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-931A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-931 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-931 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-931A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-931A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-932A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-932 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-932 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-932A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-932A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-934A1.html
      • were previously considered and rejected will be denied. Farmworkers raises four arguments in its Petition, which we address in turn. 7. In its first argument, Farmworkers alleges that the Western Region erred in assessing the "maximum forfeiture" of $8,000 for what was "clearly a mistake." Farmworkers argues that the Forfeiture Order cites to its logging violations and states that Section 1.80 of the Rules requires only a $1,000 forfeiture amount for logging violations. We disagree. Section 1.80 of the Rules lists $8,000 as the base, and not the maximum, forfeiture for "EAS equipment not installed or operational." As the Western Region determined in the Forfeiture Order, Farmworkers failed to produce "evidence to refute the San Diego Office's finding that no audio
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-935A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-935 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-935 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-935A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-935A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-946A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-946 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-946 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-946A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-946A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-957A1.html
      • conclude that the violation here primarily occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive and that the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-958A1.html
      • Entercom apparently violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. Entercom attributes these violations to employee error. Inadvertence or employee oversight does not excuse Entercom from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. Licensees are responsible for the actions of their employees. 8. The statutory maximum forfeiture for Entercom's apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 is $32,500. Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture amount for a violation of the contest rule is $4,000. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-959A1.html
      • 0008130353 WMGO(AM), Canton, Mississippi ) Facility ID No. 73259 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: March 2, 2007 Released: March 2, 2007 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc. (the "Licensee"), Licensee of Station WMGO(AM), Canton, Mississippi (the "Station"), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, and later broadcasting that telephone conversation, without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-960A1.html
      • may require. After considering the record, the factors contained in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that CBS Radio Inc. of Philadelphia, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, CBS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-962A1.html
      • in this case. Specifically, we conclude that the violation occurred due to inadequate planning and control, and not due to a deliberate attempt to deceive or to favor a particular contestant or class of contestants. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Access 1 New Jersey License Company, LLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-970A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-970 1 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-970 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-970A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-970A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-971A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-971 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-971 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-971A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-971A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-972A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-972 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-972 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-972A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-972A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-973A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-973 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-973 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-973A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-973A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-974A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-974 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-974 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-974A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-974A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-975A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-975 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-975 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-975A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-975A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-976A1.html
      • to the NAL, Truatt reports that WTBQ's EAS equipment is fully operational and that the partial repairs he made to the equipment prior to the agent's inspection warrant a reduction in the forfeiture. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-977A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-977 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-977 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-977A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-977A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-978A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-978 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-978 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-978A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-978A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-979A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-979 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-979 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-979A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-979A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-980A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-980 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-980 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-980A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-980A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-983A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S 227; 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-983 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-983 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-983A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-983A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-984A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-984 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-984 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-984A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-984A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-986A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-986 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-986 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-986A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-986A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-988A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-988 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-988 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-988A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-988A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-274734A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2784 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2784 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References Visible links 1. http://www.dtv.gov/ References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274734A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274734A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282344A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282344A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282344A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282409A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282409A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282409A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282411A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282411A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282411A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282412A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282412A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282412A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282414A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282414A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282414A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282416A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1005 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1005 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282416A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282416A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282533A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282533A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282533A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282557A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282557A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282557A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-282651A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282651A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-282651A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283144A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283144A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283144A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283834A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283834A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283834A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283835A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283835A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283835A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283844A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283844A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283844A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283853A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283853A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283853A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283858A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283858A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283858A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283859A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283859A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283859A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283861A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283861A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283861A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283881A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283881A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283881A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283889A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283889A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283889A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283893A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1160 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283893A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283893A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283903A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283903A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283903A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283907A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283907A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283907A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283908A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283908A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283908A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283909A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283909A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283909A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283910A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283910A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283910A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283911A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283911A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283911A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283940A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283940A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283940A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283941A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1226 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1226 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283941A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283941A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283942A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283942A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283942A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283949A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1253 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1253 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283949A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283949A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283950A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283950A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283950A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283952A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1292 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283952A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283952A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283953A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1293 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283953A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283953A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283954A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1295 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1295 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283954A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283954A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283955A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1296 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283955A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283955A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283956A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283956A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283956A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283957A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283957A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283957A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283958A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283958A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283958A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283959A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283959A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283959A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283966A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283966A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283966A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283967A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283967A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283967A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283970A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283970A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283970A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283971A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283971A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283971A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283972A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283972A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283972A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283974A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283974A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283974A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283977A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283977A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283977A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-283985A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283985A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-283985A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284590A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284590A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284590A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284594A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284594A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284594A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284597A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284597A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284597A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284831A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284831A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284831A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284944A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1160 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284944A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284944A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284985A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284985A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284985A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284986A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284986A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284986A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284987A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284987A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284987A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-284989A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284989A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284989A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285020A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285020A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285020A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285022A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285022A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285022A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285023A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285023A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285023A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285024A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285024A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285024A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285025A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285025A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285025A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285032A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285032A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285032A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285036A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285036A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285036A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285037A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285037A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285037A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285038A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285038A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285038A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285042A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285042A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285042A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285046A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285046A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285046A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285047A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285047A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285047A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285048A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285048A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285048A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285050A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285050A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285050A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285051A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285051A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285051A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285052A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285052A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285052A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285053A1.html
      • (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See text accompanying note 2 above. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285053A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285053A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285057A1.html
      • (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See text accompanying note 2 above. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285057A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285057A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285058A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285058A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285058A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285059A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285059A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285059A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285060A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285060A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285060A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285061A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285061A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285061A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285062A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285062A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285062A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285063A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285063A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285063A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285064A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285064A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285064A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285069A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285069A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285069A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285070A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285070A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285070A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285072A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285072A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285072A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285073A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285073A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285073A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285074A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285074A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285074A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285075A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285075A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285075A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285076A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285076A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285076A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285275A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285275A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285275A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285279A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285279A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285279A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285280A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285280A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285280A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285281A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285281A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285281A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285289A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285289A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285289A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285290A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285290A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285290A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285295A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285295A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285295A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285296A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285296A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285296A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285297A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285297A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285297A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285301A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285301A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285301A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285302A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285302A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285302A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-285307A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285307A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285307A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-287216A1.html
      • to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). The phrase "unsolicited advertisement" is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as "any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define "telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288389A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288389A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288389A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288390A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288390A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288390A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288391A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288391A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288391A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288414A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288414A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288414A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288416A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288416A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288416A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288420A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288420A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288420A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288421A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288421A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288421A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288422A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288422A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288422A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288423A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288423A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288423A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288424A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288424A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288424A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288425A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288425A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288425A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288426A1.html
      • practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We refer in this citation to the Commission's rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288426A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288426A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288427A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288427A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288427A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288428A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288428A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288428A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288433A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288433A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288433A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288434A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288434A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288434A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288435A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288435A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288435A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288436A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288436A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288436A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288439A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288439A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288439A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288441A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288441A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288441A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288443A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288443A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288443A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288445A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288445A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288445A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288452A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288452A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288452A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288454A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288454A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288454A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288455A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288455A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288455A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288456A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288456A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288456A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288457A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288457A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288457A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288458A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288458A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288458A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288478A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288478A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288478A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288504A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288504A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288504A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288505A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288505A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288505A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288506A1.html
      • (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See text accompanying note 2 above. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288506A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288506A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288507A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288507A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288507A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-288508A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288508A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288508A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289125A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289125A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289125A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289127A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289127A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289128A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289128A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289128A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289129A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289129A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289129A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289132A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289132A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289132A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289238A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289238A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289238A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289239A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289239A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289239A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289240A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289240A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289240A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289241A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289241A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289241A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289242A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289242A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289242A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289243A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289243A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289243A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289244A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289244A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289244A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289246A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289246A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289246A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289247A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289247A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289247A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289383A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289383A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289383A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289384A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289384A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289384A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289385A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289385A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289385A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289386A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289386A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289386A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289387A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289387A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289387A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289388A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289388A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289388A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289390A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289390A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289390A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289391A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289391A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289391A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289392A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289392A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289392A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289394A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289394A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289394A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289395A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289395A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289395A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289438A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289438A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289438A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289441A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289441A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289441A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289487A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289487A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289487A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289488A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289488A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289488A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289489A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289489A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289489A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289490A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289490A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289490A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289491A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289491A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289491A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289492A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289492A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289492A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289493A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289493A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289493A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289494A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289494A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289494A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289495A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289495A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289495A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289497A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289497A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289497A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289498A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289498A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289498A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289499A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289499A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289499A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289500A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289500A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289500A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289501A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289501A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289501A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289604A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289604A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289604A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289607A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289607A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289607A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-289608A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289608A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289608A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290124A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290124A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290124A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290127A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290127A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290132A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290132A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290132A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290133A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290133A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290133A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290149A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290149A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290149A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290150A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290150A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290150A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290151A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290151A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290151A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290170A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290170A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290170A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290178A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290178A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290178A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290185A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290185A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290185A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290328A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290328A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290328A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290331A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290331A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290331A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290406A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290406A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290406A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290544A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290544A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290544A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-290548A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290548A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290548A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291550A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291550A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291550A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291552A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291552A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291552A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291553A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291553A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291553A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291554A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291554A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291554A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291555A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291555A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291555A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291558A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291558A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291558A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291573A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291573A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291573A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291574A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 2 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291574A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291574A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291575A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 1 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291575A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291575A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291577A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291577A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291577A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291578A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291578A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291578A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291579A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291579A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291579A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291583A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291583A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291583A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291584A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291584A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291584A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291585A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291585A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291585A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291587A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291587A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291587A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291588A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291588A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291588A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291590A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291590A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291590A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291594A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291594A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291594A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291595A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291595A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291595A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291596A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291596A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291596A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291597A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291597A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291597A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291606A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291606A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291606A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291607A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291607A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291607A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291660A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291660A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291660A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291661A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291661A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291661A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291665A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291665A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291665A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291666A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291666A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291666A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291667A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291667A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291667A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291668A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291668A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291668A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291669A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291669A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291669A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291799A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291799A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291799A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291800A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291800A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291800A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291801A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291801A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291801A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-291802A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291802A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291802A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292025A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292025A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292025A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292026A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292026A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292026A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292027A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292027A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292027A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292028A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292028A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292028A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292029A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292029A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292029A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292112A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292112A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292112A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292113A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292113A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292113A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292114A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292114A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292114A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292115A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292115A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292115A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292116A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292116A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292116A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292119A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292119A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292119A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292127A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292127A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292128A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292128A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292128A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292235A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292235A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292235A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292236A1.html
      • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292236A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292236A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292307A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292307A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292307A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292308A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292308A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292308A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292309A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292309A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292309A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292310A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292310A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292310A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292326A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292326A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292326A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292329A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292329A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292329A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292330A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292330A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292330A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292331A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292331A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292331A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292332A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292332A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292332A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292334A1.html
      • refer in this citation to the Commission's rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292334A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292334A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292335A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292335A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292335A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292336A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292336A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292336A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292338A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292338A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292338A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292339A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292339A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292339A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292340A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292340A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292340A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292341A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292341A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292341A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292342A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292342A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292342A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292343A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292343A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292343A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292345A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292345A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292345A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292346A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292346A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292346A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292360A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292360A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292360A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292361A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 1 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292361A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292361A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292362A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292362A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292362A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292602A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292602A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292602A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292607A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292607A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292607A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292608A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292608A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292608A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292613A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292613A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292613A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292614A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292614A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292614A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292615A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292615A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292615A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292616A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292616A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292616A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292617A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292617A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292617A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292637A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292637A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292637A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292638A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292638A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292638A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292639A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292639A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292639A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292646A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292646A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292646A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-292647A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292647A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292647A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294255A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294255A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294255A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294256A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294256A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294256A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294258A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294258A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294258A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294260A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294260A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294260A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294261A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294261A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294261A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294262A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294262A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294262A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294263A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294263A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294263A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294264A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294264A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294264A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294382A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294382A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294382A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294383A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294383A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294383A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294384A1.html
      • including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached 1 complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 888-567-8688, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294384A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294384A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294385A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294385A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294385A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294399A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294399A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294399A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294400A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294400A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294400A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294401A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294401A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294401A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294402A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294402A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294402A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294403A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294403A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294403A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294404A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294404A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294404A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294405A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294405A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294405A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294406A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294406A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294406A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-294407A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294407A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294407A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302748A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302748A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302748A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302749A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302749A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302749A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302751A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302751A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302751A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302752A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302752A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302752A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302753A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302753A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302753A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302754A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302754A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302754A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302755A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302755A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302755A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302756A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302756A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302756A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302757A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302757A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302757A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302758A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302758A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302758A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302760A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302760A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302760A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-302761A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302761A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302761A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303229A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303229A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303229A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303230A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303230A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303230A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303231A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303231A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303231A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303232A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303232A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303232A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303233A1.html
      • Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303233A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303233A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303234A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303234A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303234A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303235A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303235A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303235A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303236A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303236A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303236A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303237A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303237A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303237A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303238A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303238A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303238A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303239A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303239A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303239A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303240A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303240A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303240A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303241A1.html
      • U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission Enclosures 47 U.S.C. S: 227; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303241A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303241A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303243A1.html
      • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 5 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303243A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303243A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303244A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303244A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303244A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303245A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303245A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303245A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303246A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303246A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303246A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303247A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303247A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303247A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303248A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303248A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303248A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303249A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303249A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303249A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303250A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303250A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303250A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303251A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303251A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303251A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303252A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303252A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303252A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303253A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303253A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303253A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303254A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303254A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303254A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303354A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303354A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303354A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303356A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 2 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303356A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303356A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303357A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303357A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303357A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303491A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303491A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303491A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303492A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303492A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303492A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303493A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303493A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303493A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303494A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303494A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303494A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303495A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303495A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303495A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303496A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303496A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303496A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303497A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303497A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303497A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303498A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303498A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303498A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303499A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303499A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303499A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303500A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303500A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303500A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303501A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(3) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303501A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303501A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303502A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303502A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303502A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303503A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303503A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303503A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303504A1.html
      • Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(7). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303504A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303504A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303505A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303505A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303505A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303551A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303551A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303551A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-303552A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303552A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303552A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-305699A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1774 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1774 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305699A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305699A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-305700A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1700 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1700 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305700A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305700A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DOC-307623A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1771 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1771 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307623A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307623A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-100A1.html
      • 28 models of its devices as non-compliant and that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL is excessive. Behringer also claims that it has implemented affirmative measures to ensure compliance with the FCC equipment authorization and related requirements. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture set forth in the NAL was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the guidelines enunciated in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeiture liability, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs the Commission to take into account the violator's degree of culpability, history of prior offenses and ability to pay; the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and such other matters as justice may require. We
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-105A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for the violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 13. The DTV tuner requirement promotes
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-106A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 13. The DTV tuner requirement promotes an
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-125A1.html
      • of control; $4,000 for a failure to file required forms or information; and the statutory maximum for each service for misrepresentation and a lack of candor. Further, the Commission allows a maximum forfeiture of $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed shall not exceed $1,325,000 for any single continuous violation. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules also specifies that, in determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee will take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Unremedied,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-131A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 218 unsolicited advertisements to the 132 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Extreme Leads, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,377,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Extreme Leads, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,377,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-133A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 209 unsolicited advertisements to the 45 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,133,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-134A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 29 unsolicited advertisements to the 18 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Red Rose International is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $130,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Red Rose International is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $130,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-135A1.html
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventeen unsolicited advertisements to the thirteen consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that MHJP, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that MHJP, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-146A1.html
      • related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least six unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that QuoteMaster is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $43,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that QuoteMaster is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $43,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-147A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 356 unsolicited advertisements to the 110 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Hot Lead LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,168,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Hot Lead LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,168,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-148A1.html
      • described herein are not adequate to deter violations of our USF rules, our statutory authority permits the imposition of much larger penalties and we will not hesitate to impose them as circumstances require. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 31. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that VCI is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,047,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's rules. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-152A1.html
      • $36,000 forfeiture is appropriate for Sinclair's violations. This represents the base amount for the single broadcast of the ABF program over each of the nine above-captioned Sinclair stations on September 11 or 12, 2004. I. Ordering clauses 19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Sonshine is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules. 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-153A1.html
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $71,500 (seventy-one thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-154A1.html
      • and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 28 unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Construction Expo, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $126,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Construction Expo, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $126,000 (one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-155A1.html
      • rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least seven unsolicited advertisements to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Trinity Marketing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $31,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Trinity Marketing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $31,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-156A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-157A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-158A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-165A1.html
      • (2006). See id. See also International Telecom Exchange, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6232 (2006) and Universal Telecommunications, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 6579 (2006). See 47 U.S.C. S:258(a). See 47 C.F.R. S:64.1120. 47 C.F.R. S:1.95. Id. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-54, released December 9, 2003. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 03M-58, released December 24, 2003. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80 (b)(2). The Kintzel brothers have engaged in a pattern of misconduct that spans more than five years and now multiple enforcement proceedings. Their conduct represents a systemic abrogation of their obligations as a common carrier and demonstrates a blatant disregard for Commission Rules. We therefore believe it is appropriate to consider assessing the statutory maximum for each of these recent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-191A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 11. The DTV V-Chip technology requirements
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-1A1.html
      • thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) against 1^st Source Information Specialists, Inc. d/b/a LocateCell.com ("LocateCell"). LocateCell violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. LocateCell acted in apparent and willful and repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On July 13, 2006, the Commission issued to LocateCell a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of ninety-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($97,500) based on LocateCell's apparent violation of the Bureau's directive. The NAL gave LocateCell the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-209A1.html
      • sold units of five of the devices. 9. Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Austin Hughes apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules by marketing nine unauthorized Class A digital devices without proper verification. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Austin Hughes' violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules were willful and repeated. 11. Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-230A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least fifty-two unsolicited advertisements to the twenty-two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Mexico Marketing Industries, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $335,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), that Mexico Marketing, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $335,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-3A1.html
      • the violations, but seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed $75,000 forfeiture. San Jose claims that its violations were not intentional, that its corrective measures demonstrate good faith, and that its payment of the forfeiture would cause economic hardship. III. DISCUSSION 8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, the Commission is required to take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s); the violator's degree of culpability, history or prior offenses and ability to pay; and such other matters as justice may require. We have considered San Jose's claims in light of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-45A1.html
      • for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Hawking's conduct has continued over a period that began in July 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Hawking's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 26. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-49A1.html
      • Accordingly, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that Ramko apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by selling or offering for sale 17 models of radio transceivers which, by their nature, are ineligible for equipment certification. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 20. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Based upon the record before us, it appears that Ramko's violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules were willful and repeated. 21. Section 1.80(b)(4)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-58A1.html
      • concedes that the Commission may deviate from the guidelines in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 503(b)(2)(D). In any event, the Commission's established methodologies for determining the amount of the forfeiture for the particular violations at issue here do take into account the base forfeiture amounts, as well as the upward and downward adjustment criteria, specified in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission followed this methodology exactly in the InPhonic NAL. 25. Next, with respect to section 503(b)(2)(D), InPhonic is wrong that we did not comply with the Act because the forfeiture was not sufficiently tied to InPhonic in particular. For example, with respect to the registration violation, InPhonic states that instead of "a particularized Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-59A1.html
      • Worksheet within the year preceding issuance of the NAL; and (3) a total penalty of $86,774 for failing to make three monthly universal service contributions within the year preceding issuance of the NAL. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, that Global Teldata II, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $236,774 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 29. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-67A1.html
      • demonstrate financial hardship sufficient to warrant a reduction of the forfeiture penalty. We are, however, canceling the proposed forfeiture with respect two calls that were made one day before effectuation of the call recipient's national do-not-call registration. 50. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 (f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f)(4), that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of $748,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, as described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A. We find that Dynasty's Arizona and California companies are jointly and severally liable
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-73A1.html
      • CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), and section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.3, Carrera's Petition for Waiver is GRANTED. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, Carrera IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,900 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and Commission's rules. 22. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-75A1.html
      • was persuaded by the licensee's elaboration of previously provided information that further relief was warranted. There has been no comparable showing here. 11. We have examined CB's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended ("Act"), in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules. We reverse the Bureau's decision to the extent that it improperly relied on post-investigational efforts to correct a violation as a basis to mitigate the forfeiture amount, but otherwise affirm the Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and Order finding CB Radio, Inc. liable for a forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-80A1.html
      • Enforcement Bureau shall "(a) [s]erve as the primary Commission entity responsible for enforcement of the Communications Act and other communications statutes, the Commission's rules, Commission orders and Commission authorizations, other than matters that are addressed in the context of a pending application for a license or other authorization . . ."). The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, P 27. See Star Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 18630-33; Star NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 17657-58; Northeast Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-93A1.html
      • FCC Rcd at 4030-31, PP 7-8. In its Reconsideration Petition, Infinity had argued that the distinction between use of the NAL per se and use of the NAL's underlying facts was meaningless because they both have "the same punitive effect." See Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030, PP 6-7. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17102-04, PP 32-36 (1997); on recon., 15 FCC Rcd 303, 303-05, PP 3-5 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement Reconsideration Order"). Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 4030-31, P 8 (citing 106 Cong. Rec. 17623 (Aug. 25, 1960); S. Rep. No. 1857, 86^th Cong., 2d Sess. at
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-94A1.html
      • text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) In the Matter of ) Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the ) Commission's Rules ) EB-06-IH-2271 Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The ) Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: May 17, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007 By the Commission: 1. On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-96A1.html
      • finds none that support FMG's position. Accordingly, we affirm the Bureau's rejection of FMG's claim of inability to pay, which we find unsupported by the record. 16. Conclusion. We have examined FMG's Application for Review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Bureau's earlier decision and, therefore, we deny FMG's application for review and affirm the Bureau MO&O finding FMG liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $8,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008.html
      • Adams Personnel 06-17-2008 CITATION [694]County Records (05A) aka Morgan Drexen 06-17-2008 CITATION [695]Choice One Financial, Inc. 06-17-2008 CITATION [696]Bally's Grand Hotel Casino 06-16-2008 CITATION [697]Sarah Carlson dba The Accounting Angels 06-16-2008 CITATION [698]Responsive Respiratory, Inc. 06-16-2008 CITATION [699]Ortega Chiropractic & Orthopedic Clinic 06-16-2008 CITATION [700]Monroe Door & Lock, LLC 06-16-2008 CITATION [701]Action Mortgage Co., Inc. 06-13-2008 ORDER [702]Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules 06-13-2008 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [703]Rent-A-Center, Inc., Plano, TX 06-13-2008 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [704]Lamkin Corporation, San Diego, California 06-13-2008 ORDER & CONSENT DECREE [705]Conn's, Inc., Beaumont, TX 06-13-2008 NOTICE OF DEBARMENT [706]Rafael G. Adame 06-13-2008 NAL [707]PinPoint Wireless, Inc. 06-13-2008 FORFEITURE ORDER [708]Omni Communications, Inc., KWOX, Woodward, Oklahoma 06-13-2008 FORFEITURE ORDER [709]FM 92 Broadcasters, Inc.,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-103A1.html
      • of Section 17.1125(a) of the Rules and the apparent repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Claro submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Claro's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1057A1.html
      • telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1069A1.html
      • returns from 2004 and 2005 reflecting gross revenues and contributions from October 1, 2004 through September 31, 2006; a statement reflecting the current account status of Side by Side; and an Unpaid Bills Detail as of February 29, 2008. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1070A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Whitley. Whitley has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Trevor Whitely IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1073A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $17,000 to Clemons. Clemons has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Charles Clemons IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1092A1.html
      • ("Christian Voice"), licensee of formerly noncommercial educational television Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arises from a complaint filed with the Commission in September 2003, alleging that then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM) broadcast prohibited underwriting announcements during the month of August 2003. In April 2004, after the complaint had been filed, but before the Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") had inquired into this matter, Christian Voice sought to modify its station's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1093A1.html
      • or authorization from a licensed cellular or PCS provider is required to operate its devices, it was obligated to respond fully and completely to the Bureau's inquiry. Therefore, Digital Antenna's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. A. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-112A1.html
      • sources of income. We have reviewed the personal income tax returns submitted by Ramos and we find that the forfeiture represents a percentage of gross income that falls within the range that has been found acceptable. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eliandro B. Ramos IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1143A1.html
      • ASA in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1745(a). ASA submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining ASA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1187A1.html
      • public service, which should mitigate the forfeiture, that the statutory factors requires reduction of the forfeiture, that the fine is disproportionate to the nature of the offense, and that Southern does not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1188A1.html
      • a response ("Response") to the NAL on January 16, 2008. In their Response, the Campos argue that they were not aware of the severity of the violations, and that they do not have the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 11. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1189A1.html
      • amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Ross submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Ross' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1190A1.html
      • ("Tampa Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Phillips. Phillips has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Phillips Broadcasting, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1193A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1193 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1193A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1196A1.html
      • the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1196 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1196A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1202A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1202A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1209A1.html
      • the Rules, that it took steps to remedy the violation as soon as it was notified of it, that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1225A1.html
      • its failure to immediately notify the Commission of a change in ownership if antenna structure number 1023390, Western Slope argues that its violation resulted in no harm and that the forfeiture should be cancelled in favor of an admonishment. III. DISCUSSION 14. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1226A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Action. Despite evidence that Action received the NAL, Action has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Action Communications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1291A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1299A1.html
      • inability to pay, stating that he lives on a fixed income and is disabled. In support of his claim of inability to pay, on February 19, 2008, Mr. Ryan submitted financial documentation for the years 2007, 2006 and 2005. III. Discussion 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 6. Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1314A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1346A1.html
      • 29911 Newport, Washington ) FRN No. 0011343191 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: June 9, 2008 Released: June 9, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that ProActive Communications, Inc. (the "Licensee"), licensee of Station KQQB-FM, Newport, Washington (the "Station"), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by recording a telephone conversation for broadcast and later broadcasting that telephone conversation without first informing the party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based upon our review
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1349A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Atlas Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1354A1.html
      • the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least four unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that So Clean Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that So Clean Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1366A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Global Access's failure to respond to the Commission's Notice as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. Global Access will have an opportunity to submit evidence
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1369A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1373A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that America's Toner is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that America's Toner is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1376A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Secured Finance & Investments, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1382A1.html
      • delivering at least two telephone solicitations to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1383A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Locators, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Locators, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1385A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that First Alliance Security is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that First Alliance Security is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1387A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Coastal Steel Structures, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1388A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1389A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Modena Advertising, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1394A1.html
      • to Omni in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a). Omni submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Omni's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1395A1.html
      • eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. Broadcasters submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Broadcasters' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1398A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1423A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1424A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1435A1.html
      • January 17, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") reduced the forfeiture based on Claro's history of compliance with the rules and released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received Claro's petition for reconsideration on February 19, 2008, requesting cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Claro's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-143A1.html
      • Ms. Rodriguez that prior knowledge of the law is not necessary in determining whether a violation existed. As a licensee, Ms. Rodriguez will be held responsible for any future violations of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Family Car Service, Inc. is HEREBY CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Lillian Rodriguez at her address of record and to counsel for Lillian Rodriguez at his address of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1450A1.html
      • This TV has only an `analog' broadcast tuner so will require a converter box after February 17, 2009 to receive over-the-air broadcasts with an antenna, because of the transition to digital broadcasting on that date. (It should continue to work as before with cable and satellite TV systems, gaming consoles, VCRs, DVD players, and similar products.). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1450 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1450A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1460A1.html
      • the relevant factors when assessing the forfeiture to One Mart. The Commission has already determined that the "adjustment criteria listed in . . . the guidelines reflect the factors outlined in the statute." For forfeitures assessed under Section 503 of the Act, as this one is, the adjustment factors included by the Commission in its downward adjustment criteria, in Section 1.80, are: (1) minor violation; (2) good faith or voluntary disclosure; (3) history of compliance; and (4) inability to pay. We find that the Region properly considered the downward adjustment criteria and concluded that One Mart's violation, which consisted of KEVT(AM) failure to ensure the operational readiness of its EAS equipment from November 2005 through August 2006, and its acknowledgment that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1461A1.html
      • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, AMERI-KING Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1468A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that General Equipment & Supply is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1471A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Clouden. Clouden has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Richard Clouden IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-14A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1505A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $18,000 to Mr. Doe. Mr. Doe has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, John Doe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violation of Sections 301 and 325 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1508A1.html
      • the apparent willful violation of Section 73.845 of the Rules and the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Halifax submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Halifax's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1510A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Rodriguez. Rodriguez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Frank Rodriguez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1528A1.html
      • ("Atlanta Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $12,000 to D-Mitch. D-Mitch has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, D-Mitch Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-155A1.html
      • be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS Blocker (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 U.S.C. S: 302(c); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.807(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-155 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-155A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1565A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Y Pay More is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Y Pay More is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1566A1.html
      • danger to the public. The chief engineer further states that he is not sure exactly how the gate became open, but believes that it may have resulted from a rotten gate latch that blew open from snow and wind. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Radio Plus's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1598A1.html
      • Fargo, North Dakota ) FRN No. 0010028835 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: July 7, 2008 Released: July 7, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Capstar TX Limited Partnership ("Capstar" or "Licensee"), former licensee of Station KFGO(AM), Fargo, North Dakota (the "Station"), broadcast a telephone conversation without first informing a party to the conversation of its intention to do so, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Based upon our review of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1605A1.html
      • assembling and prioritizing creditors' claims against Twin Towers Broadcasting, Inc. Owner asserts that requiring full payment of the forfeiture would harm innocent creditors. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we cancel the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to David Ryder, Receiver for violation of Sections 17.4(g) and 17.50 of the Rules IS HEREBY CANCELED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to David Ryder, Receiver at his address of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1628A1.html
      • was no deception to the public. CBS also argues that the Commission should impose a burden on the complainant to show that he listened to the Station even though his address is outside the Station's listener area contours. III. discussion 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1647A1.html
      • ("STA") on December 10, 2006, and that, since that time, it has assumed that the request would be answered by the FCC. Christian Family Network also claims that it does not have the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Christian Family Network's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1670A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Ureach Technologies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-167A1.html
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Ryzex's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2003, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Ryzex's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 18. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, Ryzex marketed two models of improperly labeled PDTs, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and PDT6846, within the past year. Ryzex's marketing of each of these two improperly labeled models
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1680A1.html
      • E000584, to among other things, re-license the antennas previously associated with E970116. On January 23, 2008, the International Bureau granted ABS-CBN's modification application for earth station E000584. 5. Also in its Response, ABS-CBN requests that we forego assessing a forfeiture in this case, or alternatively, assess a forfeiture that is substantially less than the base forfeiture amount established in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules. In arguing for mitigation, ABS-CBN states that until the instant proceeding, it continuously operated all of its earth stations in full compliance with the Commission's rules and has never been subject to a Commission enforcement action related to the operation of its earth stations. ABS-CBN also asserts that during the period of unauthorized operation it did
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1685A1.html
      • Extended Coverage High Frequency Transceivers, Public Notice 62882, 1996 WL 242469, available at > (OET, rel. May 13, 1996) ("Notice"). Id. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1205. Under Section 2.1205, the required declaration may be filed electronically. In addition, the specific import conditions are set forth in Section 2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1685 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1685A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1686A1.html
      • computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-168A1.html
      • Moreover, Able Infosat admits that it continued to operate until it filed an STA request and an application on April 20, 2007. Thus, it appears that Able Infosat violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating its VSAT system in the United States without Commission authority. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1706A1.html
      • the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3527 of the Rules. Friendship submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Friendship's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1708A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-170A1.html
      • Side by Side filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Side by Side violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1717A1.html
      • that the November 28th incident was an "isolated" occurrence and "is not part of a larger pattern." Additionally, Cox Radio asserts that it has retrained its studio operators on the transmission and reception of EAS tests and alerts to ensure that the events of November 28, 2007, are not repeated. III. dISCUSSION 4. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-174A1.html
      • reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the respondent's current financial status. Despite this explicit direction, Discovery has provided no documentation to support its claim that payment of the forfeiture will be burdensome. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Discovery Transportation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1750A1.html
      • without Commission authority after August 28, 2007. By operating earth station E872070 without Commission authorization, Saga apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Saga also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1753A1.html
      • Rules regarding the CB radio service. We caution Barber that failure to allow this inspection by the Portland Resident Agent Office will result in further sanctions and forfeitures for violation of Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jeremy William Barber, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully violating Section 303(n) of the Act, and Section 95.426(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1754A1.html
      • violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Kersnowski and his counsel received the NAL, Kersnowski has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael T. Kersnowski, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1755A1.html
      • cancelled because the KBMS antenna towers comply with Section 73.49 of the Rules. Bennett Broadcasting also argues that it did not willfully violate Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules, and that it has a history of compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Bennett Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1757A1.html
      • its authorization did not expire by operation of Section 312(g) of the Act; that it had authority to operate KTMN pursuant to Section 307(c) of the Act; and that it does not have sufficient revenue to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining A-O's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-175A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $7,000 to Grinton. Despite repeated contacts by the Seattle Office, Grinton has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, James J. Grinton, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 97.113(b) and Section 97.119(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-176A1.html
      • ($15,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules. First Baptist submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining First Baptist's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1782A1.html
      • failing to maintain a complete public inspection file, in violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MBR received the NAL, MBR has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, MBR Licensee, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1828A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-182A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1920A1.html
      • the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Cardinal's conduct has continued over a period that began during March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Cardinal's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 15. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section 9.5(b) of the Rules. The Commission has, nevertheless, found that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1921A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cardinal, the statutory maximum is $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. The Commission has imposed the statutory maximum penalty against common carriers for the intentional provision of incorrect material factual information. Because
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1937A1.html
      • for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Microboards' conduct has continued over a period that began on March 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Microboards' apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1951A1.html
      • and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Leetek's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2007, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Leetek's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 11. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for marketing unauthorized equipment. In this case, Leetek marketed two models of unauthorized pager transmitter systems. Leetek's marketing of each of these unauthorized models is a separate, continuing violation. Based on the record of this proceeding and application of the statutory factors listed above, we propose a forfeiture of $14,000
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1952A1.html
      • appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DCS's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2005 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DCS's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 13. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. As set forth in the confidential Appendix, DCS apparently marketed PDTs that were not labeled in accordance with Sections 2.909(d) and 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules. Although it is clear from the record that DCS has marketed such PDTs within the applicable one-year statute
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1960A1.html
      • forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude that Oceanic is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for its willful violation of Section 76.1603(c) of the Rules. 13. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1961A1.html
      • to the facts of this case, we conclude that LCD Digital is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $16,000 for failing to fully comply with the Consumer Alert labeling requirements in Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, LCD Digital Electronics, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for violations of Section 15.117(k) of the Rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1969A1.html
      • 2008. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately six years without Commission authorization, Mathews Readymix apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Mathews Readymix also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1987A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. However, the Commission has substantial discretion in proposing forfeitures and has stressed that digital signal reception capability is of critical importance to a successful digital transition for the nation. In its previous DTV tuner cases, the Commission concluded that applying a proposed forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2042A1.html
      • amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CoachComm's conduct has continued over a period that began in May 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CoachComm's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 11. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. CoachComm marketed unauthorized radio frequency equipment. Specifically, CoachComm marketed one system that included the same RF transmitter in both the wireless headsets and command stations. For the apparent marketing of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2051A1.html
      • provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the rules "shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2051 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2051A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2060A1.html
      • for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Kissi. Despite evidence that Kissi received the NAL, Kissi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2061A1.html
      • for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Louis. Despite evidence that Louis received the NAL, Louis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Yvon Louis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2079A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's Rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2079 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2079A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2085A1.html
      • not submit a response to the NAL, and on June 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. Mr. Doe, however, did submit a petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Mr. Doe's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2086A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. New World submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining New World's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2087A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $8,000 to Mr. Aulabaugh. Mr. Aulabaugh has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mark V. Aulabaugh IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2093A1.html
      • a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of Section 54.418(a)'s notice requirements. The Commission has warned, however, that "any omission of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant." Indeed, the Commission emphasized the importance of the ETC requirements
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2107A1.html
      • for a limited number of violations is consistent with past Commission orders. We, therefore, see no reason to reduce the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL and find that the Station is liable for a forfeiture amount of $25,000. IV. ordering clauses 19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, that Channel 51 of San Diego, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful or repeated violations of section 713 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 713, and section 79.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2140A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American Medical Services is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2141A1.html
      • delivering at least one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that Timeshare Register is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Timeshare Register is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2142A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the three consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $13,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2143A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Cost Crunch, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2144A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Guardian Steel Buildings, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2145A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Universal Roofing is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Universal Roofing is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-216A1.html
      • prepared and were on a different floor of the main studio location but could not be located because of recent staff changes, and that Lazer has since modified its procedures concerning public inspection files for all of their stations. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Lazer's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-21A1.html
      • May 31, 2007. By operating station WPOG498 for approximately two and one-half years without authorization, Richmond apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Richmond also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2293A1.html
      • South Carolina ) FRN No. 0008498685 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: October 16, 2008 Released: October 16, 2008 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that Rejoynetwork, LLC ("Rejoynetwork" or the "Licensee"), licensee of Station WAAW(FM), Williston, South Carolina (the "Station") apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by broadcasting multiple telephone conversations without giving prior notice to the individuals being called of the Licensee's intention to do so. Based on a review of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2296A1.html
      • ("Tampa Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $16,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $16,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2297A1.html
      • apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 by broadcasting each recorded call twice. 9. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." We note that Spanish Broadcasting Systems, Inc., the parent company of each Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
      • Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000 for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 30. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
      • issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 30. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
      • issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude that TWC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for its willful violation of Sections 76.1201, 76.640(b)(1)(i), and 76.640(b)(1)(v) of the Rules. 30. Under Section 503(b)(2)(A) and Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, we may assess a cable television operator a forfeiture of up to $32,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $325,000 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2306A1.html
      • of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 17.47(a) of the Rules. BK submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining BK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2316A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2335A1.html
      • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Brahmin Broadcasting Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 1, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 10. Payment of the forfeiture ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2355A1.html
      • 90% of the authorized power, and failure to maintain a complete public inspection file. In its response, Viva does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but requests that we cancel the forfeiture in light of its remedial efforts. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Viva's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2391A1.html
      • Indecency Rules as well as the investigation by the Media Bureau considering the allegations in the informal objections to the renewal of Station WQAM(AM). l. "Investigations and Hearings Division" means the Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, acting on behalf of the Enforcement Bureau. m. "NAL" means Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), Miami, Florida (FCC 04-225), released November 23, 2004. n. "Order" or "Adopting Order" means an Order adopted by the Bureaus adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion or modification. o. "Parties" means Beasley and the Bureaus. p. "Rules"
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2437A1.html
      • for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that XLNT Idea's conduct has continued over a period that began in August 2005, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to XLNT Idea's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is $7,000. As noted above, XLNT Idea marketed three devices prior to authorization: the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter, the Nexis 100AP Publisher, and the Xi440 CD/DVD Printer. We note, however, that the Nexis 100AP AutoPrinter and the Nexis 100AP Publisher are identical except that the Nexis
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2443A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Western Aviation, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2449A1.html
      • transmitting equipment on land mobile channels reserved exclusively for use by public safety entities. In his response to the NAL, Doe does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Doe's response to the NAL and his statement of income, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2451A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2457A1.html
      • the base forfeiture of $1,000 against SkyPort and its affiliates for the section 214 authorization and each of the two earth station licenses is appropriate and we propose a total forfeiture of $3,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that SkyPort Global Communications, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating sections 25.119 and 63.24 of the Commission's rules. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2461A1.html
      • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.3526(a) and 73.49 of the Rules. Star Power submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Star Power's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2484A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2484 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2484A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2503A1.html
      • violated Sections 11.35(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules and submitted a payment in the amount of $12,000 for those violations. Black Crow, however, requested cancellation or reduction of the remaining $11,000 proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Black Crow's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2516A1.html
      • dollars ($17,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 301 and 333 of the Act. Mr. Allred submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Allred's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2550A1.html
      • dollars ($15,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.49, 73.1125(a) and 73.1201(a)(2) of the Rules. Perihelion submitted a response to the NAL requesting to pay the forfeiture in six installments. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Perihelion's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-25A1.html
      • repeated violation of Sections 11.35 and 73.3526 of the Rules. Broadcasters, Inc. submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Broadcasters, Inc.'s response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2625A1.html
      • 310(d) of the Act and section 25.119 of the Commission's rules. 6. The fundamental issue in this case is whether FTH violated section 310(d) of the Act and Section 25.119 of the Commission rules by transferring 35 satellite earth station licenses without required Commission approval. We answer this question affirmatively. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, and under Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we therefore conclude that FTH is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $17,500. 7. FTH admits that it failed to apply for Commission approval to transfer control of the satellite earth station licenses. In connection with the stock recapitalization, FTH applied for Commission approval to transfer FTH television broadcast licenses. Notwithstanding FTH's arguments, the Commission did
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-262A1.html
      • WNOV(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin ) Facility ID No. 36069 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: February 20, 2008 Released: February 20, 2008 By the Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Courier Communications Corp. ("Courier" or the "Licensee"), Licensee of Station WNOV(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the "Station"), apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the other party to the conversation of its intention to do so. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2666A1.html
      • ("Tampa Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to Rama. Rama has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rama Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of Sections 17.50, 73.49, 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2673A1.html
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that Multi-Tech's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2006 or earlier, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Multi-Tech's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 8. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Multi-Tech apparently marketed the CallFinder device without including in the user manual the consumer information regarding radio frequency interference required by Section 15.105(a) of the Rules. We note that a $7,000 forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2698A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $2,000 to OMI. OMI submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture due to its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining OMI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-26A1.html
      • dollars ($13,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.50 and 17.57 of the Rules. IBC submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act'), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining IBC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2715A1.html
      • 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by AMERI-KING Corporation, IS DISMISSED, and the Bureau's 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and the Bureau affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2724A1.html
      • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Lazer Licensees, LLC's Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and the Region's Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. Payment of the forfeitures ordered by the Region and affirmed by this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2732A1.html
      • orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Rentex is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Rentex is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2794A1.html
      • forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Visiplex is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for construction or operation at an unauthorized location. Visiplex concedes that it operated its wireless synchronized clock radio systems under call signs WPJU326 and WQBF524 at permanent fixed locations, rather than mobile locations as authorized in its licenses. We find that Visiplex's operation of each of these
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2815A1.html
      • ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, Christian Family Network's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART and the forfeiture is reduced to five thousand dollars ($5,000). 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-368A1.html
      • In this regard, it was Forever's "omission" that resulted in its willful operation of a monitoring system that could not detect single light outages, in violation of Section 17.47 of the Commission's Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Forever of PA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-397A1.html
      • one telephone solicitation to the consumer identified in the Appendix who had registered her telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call registry. We have further determined that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000.00. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-398A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least three unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Business Payment Systems, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $24,500.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Business Payment Systems, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $24,500.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-402A1.html
      • argues that it did not willfully violate Section 301, that it did not repeatedly violate Section 301, that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliance, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-403A1.html
      • a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; that it made good faith and voluntary disclosures to the Commission; that it did not act alone in this matter; and that it has taken remedial measures to ensure future compliances. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-405A1.html
      • the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Tampa Office has since learned that Mr. Gaye passed away. Because Mr. Gaye is no longer living, we cancel the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Henry Gaye IS HEREBY CANCELED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional Director, South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 301. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832700006 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, January 9, 2008) ("NAL"). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S:S: 0.111,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-410A1.html
      • the renewal application submitted by the vendor was for its taxi dispatch service license. Five Star further asserts that it has fully cooperated in the Commission's investigation. Based on these facts, Five Star requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-416A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Blue Casa's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8. Blue Casa
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-417A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Sprint Nextel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Sprint Nextel
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-418A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Amp'd Mobile's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8. Amp'd Mobile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-419A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Link Systems' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Link Systems
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-420A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cricket's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8. Cricket will have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-421A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Cooperative Communications' failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Cooperative Communications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-422A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Reduced Rate Long Distance's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $8,000. 8.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-423A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Total Call's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $4,000. 8. Total Call
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-424A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. West Star's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of the six informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, and letter orders warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-425A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. WorldOne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. WorldOne will have an opportunity to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-426A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. ITEG's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of this informal complaint, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000. 9. ITEG will have an opportunity to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-427A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Alltel's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $16,000. 8. Alltel will have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-428A1.html
      • regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. AT&T's failure to respond warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed forfeiture of $96,000. 8. AT&T will have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-432A1.html
      • fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Sections 17.51(a) and 73.1745 of the Rules. Pittman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Pittman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-457A1.html
      • Response and the record, we find that Manning did not willfully and repeatedly violate a Commission order by failing to respond to a directive of the Bureau. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Manning Municipal Communications and Television System Utilities, in the March 30, 2007, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-458A1.html
      • Commission to incur costs, with no reasonable hope of recovery. However, we emphasize that our decision to rescind the proposed forfeiture in no way exonerates Habla for its apparent violation of a Commission order. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended ("Act"), and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the amount if four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Habla Communicaciones, Inc. in the March 30, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of a Commission directive IS CANCELED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-463A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-46A1.html
      • August 28, 2007. By operating its PLMRS station for approximately 22 months without Commission authorization, Miller apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the rules. Miller also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the station. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(a) of the rules, provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-472A1.html
      • forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that DBK's conduct has continued over a period that began during 2004, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to DBK's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year. 19. Under The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In this case, within the past year, DBK marketed two PDT models that were improperly labeled, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and Symbol WSS1060, and one PDT model that was both unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-473A1.html
      • fence or other enclosure. In its Response, Brahmin requests a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on its good faith efforts to repair the fences surrounding the KRAE antenna tower, and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Brahmin's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-474A1.html
      • violation was not willful and not repeated, that Metro West took immediate steps to rectify the situation as soon as it was aware of the violation, and that Metro West has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-493A1.html
      • function and evaluate whether Hauppauge violated Commission rules. There is no question that Hauppauge received the LOIs. To date, however, Hauppauge has failed to provide full and complete responses. Hauppauge's failure to fully respond to the Bureau's inquiry constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a Commission order. A. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-497A1.html
      • a separate violation and Pembrook therefore requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced by $3,000. Second, Pembrook requests that the overall fine be reduced by no less than $2,000 to reflect its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Pembrook's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-498A1.html
      • radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 439.850 MHz and 147.560 MHz without a license. In its response to the NAL, Mondgock does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mondgock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-505A1.html
      • Hispanic in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Hispanic submitted a response the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Hispanic's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-516A1.html
      • owner. Accordingly, we conclude that the NAL issued to Pinnacle must be cancelled and a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $3,000 is being issued on this date to Holmes. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Pinnacle Towers LLC IS HEREBY CANCELLED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Pinnacle Towers LLC at its address of record and to counsel for Pinnacle Towers LLC at his address
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-521A1.html
      • even if Campbell had provided such evidence, the mere filing of an application would not have provided Campbell any authority to operate a radio station. Accordingly, based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael Stone Campbell, a/k/a Monroe Campbell, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 5. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-524A1.html
      • DISCUSSION 7. WMGO does not dispute the merits of our apparent finding in the NAL that it violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules and we therefore affirm that holding. Nevertheless, WMGO contends that we should cancel or reduce the forfeiture. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-525A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. Telefyne's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of three informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each informal complaint, for a proposed
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-526A1.html
      • Forfeiture Amount 8. The Act establishes the Commission's authority to assess forfeitures; the Commission's rules set the limits. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act or failure to act. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. GNCW's failure to respond to the Commission's notices of these two informal complaints, as required by section 1.717 of the Commission's rules, warrants the base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each complaint, for a total
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-528A1.html
      • for aeronautical use subject to certain conditions. See e.g., File No. 0003100761 (granted November 4, 2003). LOI response at 1. Id. GMS indicated that it subsequently learned that the municipality is not using the system because it was not able to obtain a license to operate in the 4.9 GHz band. Id See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-528 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-528A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-535A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-541A1.html
      • friends about the radio station equipment and the antenna on the roof, but he was not able to obtain any information from them. Watkins does not address in response his refusal to allow the agents to inspect the equipment. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Watkins's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-548A1.html
      • of $50,000 against COI for failing to maintain records and documentation supporting COI's Worksheets. 8. We also find by a preponderance of the evidence that COI has willfully and repeatedly failed to respond on a timely basis to a directive of the Bureau to provide certain information and documents, and support its response with the required affidavit or declaration. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. COI's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries for approximately one month occurred following COI's promise that its LOI response would be timely submitted. However,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-552A1.html
      • Response, Greene Declaration at paras. 13-14; Irizarry Declaration at paras. 15-18. 47 U.S.C. S: 301; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.903(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.949(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.955(a)(1). See, e.g., Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002) (licensee is responsible for compliance with all Commission rules). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3). (Continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-552 NON-PUBLIC/FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-552A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-555A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-562A1.html
      • of the proposed forfeiture. On January 9, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") released the Forfeiture Order. The Bureau received IBC's petition for reconsideration on February 7, 2008, requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining IBC's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-563A1.html
      • ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on January 22, 2007, by Communications Relay Corporation, IS DENIED. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Communications Relay Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $13,000 for violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.23, 17.47, 17.48, 17.49 and 17.57 of the Rules. 20. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-597A1.html
      • response on September 17, 2007 ("Response"). In its Response, CB Shop argues that Galaxy Model DX99V does not require certification by the Commission because it is not a CB transceiver. Consequently, CB Shop argues the forfeiture should be cancelled. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-598A1.html
      • 8, 2008, and March 12, 2008. In its Response, Carlsbad Radio argues that it made efforts immediately after the Denver Office's inspection to amend the WGW926 license, and that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-599A1.html
      • 2008. In its Response, Bravo Mic argues that it made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, prior to the Denver Office's inspection. Bravo Mic also argues that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-603A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-605A1.html
      • the problem; the tower involved was one of a three tower array; the violation was not willful; Threshold knew about the problem prior to involvement by the Commission; and Threshold has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-606A1.html
      • license on 95.9 MHz. Simon filed a response ("Response") to the NAL on July 19, 2007, and supplemented his response on March 7, 2008. In his Response, Simon states that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-610A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-669A1.html
      • using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one unsolicited advertisement to the one consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Amerilist, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Amerilist, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-670A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Copier Search International, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Copier Search International, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-671A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least two unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that DD&S Companies, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000.00. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that DD&S Companies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000.00 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-741A1.html
      • no shareholders, no officers, and no address. BEC also states that it requested dissolution from Texas State Comptroller on August 17, 2007. As part of its Petition, BEC includes its filings with the Texas State Comptroller. 6. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the $8,000 forfeiture is warranted. Nevertheless, we find that it is appropriate to admonish BEC for its willful and repeated violation of Section 73.3526 of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-742A1.html
      • not deny the inoperability of the EAS equipment, but requests that the forfeiture be reduced or cancelled based on its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, and its ability to pay the forfeiture because of its financial situation. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-743A1.html
      • Honolulu Office to resolve the issue. After working with the Honolulu Office for four days in October, 2007, JMK filed its Supplemental Response, which reiterated the arguments of its Response, but supplied new, and conflicting, engineering data and information. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining JMK's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-74A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated, "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-74 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-74A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-756A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($4,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 90.403(a)(2) of the Rules. Traffic Control submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Traffic Control's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-778A1.html
      • toll-free numbers. See Defendant's Response to Complainant's Interrogatory No. 3. Complaint at 14. Response at 5. Complaint at 15. Complaint at Ex. K; Answer at Ex. II. Erdman Technologies Corp. v. US Sprint Communications Company, 11 FCC Rcd 6339, 6342 (May 29, 1996). Answer at 10. Response at 9. Complaint at 15. 47 U.S.C. S:S: 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, P: 29 (1998). Complaint at 15. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d), (h). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-778 2 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-778A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-792A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Maignan submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Maignan's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-817A1.html
      • a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least four unsolicited advertisements to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Meridian Marketing Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-818A1.html
      • by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send two unsolicited advertisements to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $9,000. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $9,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-869A1.html
      • it has been operating on one of the EBS channels without authority since 1994 and on two of the EBS channels without authority since 2001. As detailed below, we find that Dakota Central apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on three EBS channels without Commission authorization. 8. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for unauthorized use of a frequency. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess against an entity that is neither a broadcaster nor a common carrier a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-876A1.html
      • Communications Act and the Commission's rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Berthot Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-876 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-876A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-904A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Alliance Capital's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Alliance Capital Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-905A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Aras's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Aras Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-906A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for Mario's Roofing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Mario's Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-907A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Tri-State's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Tri-State Printer & Copier Supply Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-908A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $13,500 for ESpeed's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4),and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that ESpeed Mortgage Dot Com, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $13,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-909A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $10,000 for NEIR's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that New England Industrial Roofing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-910A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $4,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-911A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Company's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Infasource.com IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-961A1.html
      • thousand dollars ($8,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 73.1350(a) and 73.1745(a) of the Rules. Mr. Rackley submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Rackley's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-968A1.html
      • assessed on Antique Radio Collector, an "individual" engaged in a casual source of income, is excessive when compared to the forfeiture assessed on a business entity regularly engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment. III. DISCUSSION 6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Antique Radio Collector's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292839A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292839A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292839A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292892A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292892A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292892A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292902A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292902A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292902A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292903A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292903A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292903A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-292904A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292904A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292904A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294408A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294408A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294408A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294422A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294422A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294422A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294423A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294423A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294423A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294424A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294424A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294424A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294425A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294425A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294425A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294426A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294426A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294426A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-294427A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294427A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294427A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302845A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302845A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302845A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302846A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302846A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302846A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302847A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302847A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302847A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302848A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302848A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302848A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302857A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302857A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302857A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302880A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302880A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302880A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302884A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302884A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302884A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302885A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302885A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302885A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302889A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302889A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302889A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302891A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302891A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302891A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302892A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302892A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302892A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302894A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302894A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302894A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302895A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302896A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302897A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302898A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302899A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302900A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302901A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302902A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302904A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302905A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302906A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-302911A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). 1 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302911A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302911A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303115A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303115A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303115A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303121A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303121A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303121A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303127A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303127A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303127A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303129A1.html
      • months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See attached complaint. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303129A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303129A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303132A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303132A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303132A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303133A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303133A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303133A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303134A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA XX-XXX 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA XX-xxxx FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303134A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303134A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303135A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303135A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303135A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303159A1.html
      • restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint(s) at issue in this citation. Within the complaint(s) is the telephone number 585-770-1499, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303159A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303159A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303160A1.html
      • restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 623-878-4178, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303160A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303160A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303161A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303161A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303161A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303162A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303162A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303162A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303163A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303163A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303163A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303164A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303164A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303164A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303169A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303169A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303169A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303170A1.html
      • system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303170A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303170A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303172A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303173A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303174A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303175A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303176A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303177A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303177A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303177A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303178A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303179A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303180A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303181A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303182A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303182A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303182A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303183A1.html
      • to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303183A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303183A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303184A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303185A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303186A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303187A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303255A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303255A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303255A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303256A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303256A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303256A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303258A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303258A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303258A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303262A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303262A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303262A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303285A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303285A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303285A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303286A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303286A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303286A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303287A1.html
      • 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303287A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303287A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303288A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 3 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303288A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303288A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303300A1.html
      • 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303300A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303300A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-303328A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306714A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306722A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306723A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-306725A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307541A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307592A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307592A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307592A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DOC-307600A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 4 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307600A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307600A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-145A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least nine unsolicited advertisements to the two consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $84,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Progressive Business Publications, Inc is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $84,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1697A1.html
      • the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The GPS-JM2 GPS Jammer (which operates in the 1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands) intentionally transmits radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1205. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1697 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1697A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1824A1.html
      • by the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. The Astak CM-918T2 is certified under FCC ID WQZCM-918T2 to operate at 905 MHz and 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1824 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1824A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-258A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ben Lomand apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ben Lomand Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-259A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bellvoz apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bellvoz Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-260A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Bee Line apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Bee Line Cable IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-261A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Atlantic apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Atlantic Telecommunications, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-264A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find American Fiber apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, American Fiber Systems of Georgia, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-265A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Action Communications, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Action Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-267A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find 800 Response apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 800 Response Information Services LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-269A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Buckeye apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Buckeye Telesystem, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-270A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Cherokee apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Cherokee Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-271A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find China Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, China Telecom (Americas) Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-276A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Communications Venture apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Communications Venture Corporation dba InDigital Telecom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-277A1.html
      • an annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Aquis apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ComSoft Corporation dba Aquis Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-278A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Consolidated Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Consolidated Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-280A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clear World apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clear World Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-282A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find D.G.A. apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, D.G.A. Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-290A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Isan apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Isan IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-293A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Tennessee apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-294A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Kitchen Productions apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Kitchen Productions, Inc. d/b/a Tortoise Paging IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-296A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find KanOkla Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-297A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Latino Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Latino Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-298A1.html
      • an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Threshold apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Threshold Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-299A1.html
      • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Leflore apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Leflore Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-302A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Legacy Long Distance apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-303A1.html
      • the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find M & L Enterprises apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, M & L Enterprises, Inc. dba Skyline Telephone Co., Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-305A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Liberty apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Liberty Contracting and Consulting LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-306A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Call One apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, United Communications Systems, Inc. dba Call One IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-308A1.html
      • officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find McClure Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, McClure Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-309A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find VDL apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, VDL, Inc., d/b/a Global Telecom Brokers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-310A1.html
      • apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Millennium Digital Media Systems, LLC, dba Broadstripe IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-312A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Volunteer apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Volunteer First Services, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-315A1.html
      • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Commnet apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Commnet Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-316A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Momentum Telecom, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Momentum Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-317A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Worldwide Marketing apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Worldwide Marketing Solutions, Incorporated, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-318A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Angel Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Angel Communications LLC d/b/a Mr. Radio of Arizona Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-321A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Data Radio Management apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Data Radio Management Company, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-322A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find MacIntyre apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Scott C. MacIntyre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-323A1.html
      • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Edward Adams Associates apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Edward Adams Associates, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-324A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Zicore apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Zicore IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant annual
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-327A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SI2Way apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, SI2Way, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-328A1.html
      • in compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Frank apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Wayne Frank IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-331A1.html
      • with the Commission's CPNI rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hopper apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, James T. Hopper IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-332A1.html
      • certificate stating his personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Sherman apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Arthur N. Sherman IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-333A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telebeeper apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleBEEPER of New Mexico, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-334A1.html
      • annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Clifford Bade apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Clifford Bade IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-335A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find National Brands apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, National Brands, Inc. d/b/a Sharenet Communications Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-337A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Netcarrier apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Netcarrier Telecom, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-338A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Network Innovations apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Network Innovations, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-340A1.html
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Nunn apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Nunn Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-341A1.html
      • annual CPNI compliance certificate, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find O.R. Knutson apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, O.R. Knutson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-342A1.html
      • compliance with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find One Touch apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, One Touch India LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-344A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Phillips County apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Phillips County Telephone Company dba PC Telcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-347A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Prime Time Ventures apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Prime Time Ventures, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-348A1.html
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find PriorityOne apparently liable for a forfeiture of three thousand dollars ($3,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, PriorityOne Telecommunications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-349A1.html
      • an officer of the company, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find ProCom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, ProCom LMR, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-350A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Protek apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Protek Leasing Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-352A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find DAR apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, DAR Communications Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-357A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Communications, Ltd. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-358A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santa Rosa apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-359A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Santel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-360A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Securetel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Securetel Network Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-362A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Shreveport apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Shreveport Communications Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-367A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Dixville Telephone apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Dixville Telephone Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-370A1.html
      • of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find E & F Telecom apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E & F Telecom, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-371A1.html
      • company with personal knowledge, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Eastern Colorado apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Eastern Colorado Independent Networks, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-372A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find EGIX apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, EGIX, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-373A1.html
      • actions taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find SCTelcom apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, South Central Wireless, Inc. dba SCTelcom IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-374A1.html
      • release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Specialized Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Specialized Mobile Radio, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-378A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find BKT apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, BKT Telecom Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-380A1.html
      • unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find First Mile apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, E.Com Technologies, LLC dba First Mile Technologies IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-382A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Gabriel apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Gabriel Wireless, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-383A1.html
      • taken against data brokers, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find T2 Communications apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, T2 Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-384A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Ganoco apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Ganoco, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-385A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Telchin apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Telchin Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a compliant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-386A1.html
      • with the rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find General Mobile Radio apparently liable for a forfeiture of six thousand dollars ($6000). 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, General Mobile Radio IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-391A1.html
      • rules, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. apparently liable for a forfeiture of four thousand dollars ($4, 000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-394A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find Highland apparently liable for a forfeiture of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, Highland Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-401A1.html
      • the unauthorized release of CPNI, has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find TeleSpan apparently liable for a forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, TeleSpan Carrier Access, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for willfully or repeatedly violating Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to submit
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-407A1.html
      • frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-407 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-407A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-426A1.html
      • failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated Section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). 12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-438A1.html
      • Response, Princess K Fishing Corporation argues it did not willfully or repeatedly violate Section 80.89(a) of the Rules, that it was not responsible for the acts of its employee, and that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-479A1.html
      • for STA. Thus, it appears that SES apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by operating the Satcom C-3 satellite without Commission authority, and that SES apparently violated the requirement to file a modification application to extend the license pursuant to Section 25.117 of the Rules. 6. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-47A1.html
      • contained in programming that was supplied by the same third-party programmer and involved many of the same advertisers as programming that drew a previous admonishment for violation of the Underwriting Rules. In these circumstances, no mitigation as a consequence of the "embedded" nature of the impermissible advertisements is warranted. B. Proposed Action 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-48A1.html
      • appropriate. Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to this case, we conclude that Ministerio is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Commission's Underwriting Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Ministerio Radial Cristo Viene Pronto, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational Station WCRP(FM), Guayama, Puerto Rico, is HEREBY NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-49A1.html
      • calls to action. The foregoing references appear to exceed the licensee's discretion under Xavier because each, in the context presented, refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters that are not necessarily possessed by competitors, or otherwise contain prohibited price information or other language of inducement. B. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-50A1.html
      • substantially fewer and the period of time over which they aired is substantially less. Based on all the circumstances, and after examining forfeiture actions in other recent underwriting cases, we believe that a forfeiture of $2,500 is appropriate. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Cayuga County Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational Station WDWN(FM), Auburn, New York, is hereby NOTIFIED OF ITS APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,500 for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 399b, and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-51A1.html
      • rule violations while preparing to respond to our August 9th LOI, that fact alone does not raise a question of misrepresentation or lack of candor. There is, therefore, no basis on which to conclude that PRC failed to observe its duty to be truthful and candid before the Commission. B. Proposed Action 10. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-538A1.html
      • March 13, 2008, when Discovery filed its request for an STA. Thus, it appears that Discovery violated Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application, and violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules by continuing to operate its station without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-539A1.html
      • impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Capital Line's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 180(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Capital Line IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $18,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), section 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-558A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Modena's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Modena Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-560A1.html
      • earth station E920702 and earth station E7541 without Commission authorization, Lockheed Martin apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 25.102(a) of the Rules. Lockheed Martin also acted in apparent violation of Section 25.121(e) of the Rules by failing to file timely renewal applications for the earth stations. IV. PROPOSED FORFEITURE 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-588A1.html
      • at 9026 West Brudick Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Skalecki reports that he operates a weather monitoring station from that property, but claims that the unlicensed broadcast station was operating from another nearby residence on which several antennas are located. IV. DISCUSSION 13. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Skalecki's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-669A1.html
      • that any of the 249 non-DTV compliant receivers were imported prior to March 1, 2007, and sold by Hannspree in their two California-based retail stores from their inventory, then we should reduce the amount of the proposed forfeiture accordingly. III. Discussion 9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 10. We
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-697A1.html
      • pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. SkyPort has failed to either respond to the NAL or pay the full amount of the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-728A1.html
      • In addition, Saga argues that imposing the proposed forfeiture for operation of its earth station without a license would be contrary to the public interest. Saga argues that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. Discussion 7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 8. Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-765A1.html
      • a maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that WorldNet's failure to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants an increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to compromise the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-779A1.html
      • No. 200932080039 Boston, Massachusetts ) FRN 0005069802 ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 8, 2009 Released: April 8, 2009 By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, we find that Greater Boston Radio, Inc. ("Greater Boston" or the "Licensee"), licensee of Station WMJX(FM), Boston, Massachusetts ("Station WMJX" or the "Station"), broadcast information about a contest without fully and accurately disclosing all material terms thereof, and failed to conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised, in apparent willful violation of Section 73.1216 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-79A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Bright House's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-80A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-812A1.html
      • eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 11.35(a) of the Rules. Bethune-Cookman submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Bethune-Cookman's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-81A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Charter's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-82A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Harron's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-830A1.html
      • relocated in July 2007. ICTI also admits that it did not notify the Commission that the Station's main studio had been relocated, as required by the rule. As a result of these facts, we find that ICTI has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules set a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the main studio requirements. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-831A1.html
      • "sale or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.237(a). The grant of certification for the Listentech LT700 was issued on June 8, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-831 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-831A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-83A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Comcast's failure to even attempt to respond to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-84A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Suddenlink's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority and threatens to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-85A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-897A1.html
      • of four thousand dollars ($4,000) against 1st United Tel-Com, Inc. ("1st United" or "Company"). 1st United violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and documents. 1st United acted in willful or repeated violation of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("Act") and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). 2. On March 30, 2007, the Bureau issued to 1st United a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) based on 1st United's apparent violation of a Bureau's directive. The NAL gave 1st United the option of paying the proposed forfeiture or of filing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-90A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Kauai NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-936A1.html
      • to submit a response to the NAL. On December 9, 2008, the Bureau released a no response Forfeiture Order, imposing a $25,000 forfeiture. On January 12, 2009, Rama filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 9. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Rama's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-93A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that TWC's apparent failure to comply with the Oceanic Oahu Central NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-94A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 11. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of Section 76.939, although they do establish four thousand dollars ($4,000) as the base amount for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Cox's apparent failure to comply with the Cox NAL and Order warrants a substantially larger forfeiture. Misconduct
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-95A1.html
      • a maximum of $375,000 for a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failure to respond to Commission communications. We find that Midcontinent's failure to respond fully to the LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a significant increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission's authority
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-991A1.html
      • the Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least one unsolicited, prerecorded advertising message to the consumer identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that One Stop Motors, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that One Stop Motors, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292987A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292988A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292989A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292990A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292991A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292992A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292993A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292994A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292995A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292996A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292997A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292998A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-292999A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293000A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293001A1.html
      • of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293002A1.html
      • company. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess., 102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293010A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293011A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293012A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293013A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293014A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293015A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293016A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293017A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293018A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293019A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293021A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293023A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293025A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293026A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293027A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293028A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293029A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293030A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293031A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293033A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-293035A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294409A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294410A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294411A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294412A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294413A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294414A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294415A1.html
      • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 312-380-5416, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294416A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294418A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294419A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294421A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294428A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294429A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-294430A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302692A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302821A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302823A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302825A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302826A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302836A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302838A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302839A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302840A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302841A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302842A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-302844A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-305858A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-305909A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-305923A1.html
      • 3795 ("[I]f the sender obtains the number from sources of information compiled by third parties-e.g., membership directories, commercial databases, or internet listings-the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient."). 2006 TCPA Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3793-9, 3795, 3812. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307583A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307584A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307585A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307586A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307587A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307604A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307606A1.html
      • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 858-564-2564, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307608A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307610A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307611A1.html
      • advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We have attached one complaint at issue in this citation. Within the complaint is the telephone number 904-268-7001, which your business utilized during the time period at issue. See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307622A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307624A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307625A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307626A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307627A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307628A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307629A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307630A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307631A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307632A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307633A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307634A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307635A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307636A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307807A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12)(i)-(iii) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission 1 2 Federal Communications Commission FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307807A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307807A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307808A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307811A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307814A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307815A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307816A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307817A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307818A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307819A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307839A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307840A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307841A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307842A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307843A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307844A1.html
      • continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4) See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307850A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307851A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307852A1.html
      • Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See attached complaint(s). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(d). Consumer.Net v. AT&T, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298 (1999). 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307853A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307854A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307855A1.html
      • 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14042-49; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(9) (exceptions to definition of "telephone solicitation"). Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2394 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2394 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307855A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307855A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307856A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307859A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307860A1.html
      • a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with a prerecorded sales messages to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-307861A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312971A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312972A1.html
      • dialing system" means "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(i) - (iii); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1)(i) - (iii). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312973A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DOC-312974A1.html
      • FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone solicitations made before January 1, 2005. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2). See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (forfeiture maximum set at $11,000 for violators who are not common carriers or other entities specifically designated in section 503 of the Act); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-108A1.html
      • violations described in the NAL. More specifically, we find that Sonshine willfully and repeatedly violated Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to air required sponsorship identification announcements. 10. We now turn to the proposed forfeiture amount, which in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-114A1.html
      • cross-border 23 GHz operations be licensed, whether the Petitioners clearly understood it or not, and regardless of any oral statements made to their counsel or other representatives. 13. We have examined the applications for review pursuant to the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in conjunction with The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Having done so, we find no reason to reverse the Region's earlier decisions. Therefore, we deny the applications for review of Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More Enterprises Communications Network, Inc., Uniradio Corporation and Anderson Desk Company, and affirm the Region's Forfeiture Orders finding Kojo Worldwide Corporation, More
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-1A1.html
      • of $30,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to make NANP contributions, and a total proposed forfeiture of $100,000 for ADMA's apparent failure to obtain an international section 214 authorization prior to commencing international service. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 40. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that ADMA Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $672,541 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-25A1.html
      • the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $50,000 to Hawking. Although Hawking received a copy of the NAL, it has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Hawking Technologies, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $50,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a) and 15.204(d) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-26A1.html
      • amount of $10,000 for failure to make required regulatory fee payments. Therefore, we find Omniat is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $40,000 for its willful and repeated failure to make regulatory fee payments from 2005 to 2008. 30. Finally, we find that Omniat has repeatedly and willfully failed to provide a timely and complete response to the LOI. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure to respond to a Commission communication. We find that Omniat's total failure to respond to the LOI warrants a substantial increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-27A1.html
      • Region erred and we affirm the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, the Application for Review filed by CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS hereby DENIED. 28. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, CBS Radio Inc. of Tampa, formerly Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules. 29. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-34A1.html
      • $97,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 15. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures. We may apply the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the circumstances demand. 16. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-09-2623A1.html
      • frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions." The video transmitters listed in your response intentionally transmit radio frequency energy on restricted frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 5U.S.C S: 552(a)(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2623 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2623A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-09-2644A1.html
      • until the filing of its STA request on January 30, 2009, Nevada Sun Peak apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Nevada Sun Peak also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQE205. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1047A1.html
      • considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider the fact that CruiseEmail's conduct has continued for several years, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to CruiseEmail's apparent violations occurring within the past year. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, set the base forfeiture amount for operation at an unauthorized location at $4,000. Accordingly, we propose a total base forfeiture of $12,000 ($4,000 x 3 stations) against CruiseEmail for its operation of stations KDS, WGM, and WHX at unauthorized locations in apparent willful
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1052A1.html
      • Commission's database. Accordingly, we find that Freedom Communications did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f) (4) of the Commission's rules, that the proposed forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) issued to Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC in the February 26, 2009 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture IS CANCELLED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1054A1.html
      • NAL on February 9, 2010. In their response, Nierman and Kakadu do not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but request cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on their inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1073A1.html
      • for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Eight Friends. Eight Friends has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Eight Friends IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1077A1.html
      • 10. None of the foregoing announcements are permissible under Xavier because each, in the context presented is "clearly promotional." Each announcement refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters and their products and seeks to distinguish them from competitors, or contains language of inducement. B. Proposed Action 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the enhanced underwriting requirements is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1079A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $4,000 to Paisa. Paisa has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Paisa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1080A1.html
      • Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara. Neither Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, nor Richard Parara has filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Delroy Johnson, Paul Parara, and Richard Parara ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1088A1.html
      • An intentional radiator is "[a] device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S:15.3(o). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201. A certification is "an equipment authorization issued by the Commission based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C S: 552a(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1088 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1088A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1095A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for AZ Prime One's willful and repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules and related orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that AZ Prime One Mortgage Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1256A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 5. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1257A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 5. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1258A1.html
      • confidential. As set forth in detail in the confidential Appendix, we conclude that Alpheus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 4.9(f) of the Rules by failing to file an electronic Notification within 120 minutes and an Initial Communications Outage Report within 72 hours of discovering a reportable outage. B. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1268A1.html
      • Report. As detailed more fully in the Confidential Appendix, we find that Verizon's Final Report was incomplete and inaccurate in several important respects. We therefore find that Verizon apparently willfully violated Section 4.11 of the Rules by filing a Final Report that was not true, complete and accurate. B. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1274A1.html
      • 8. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Myers apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment on the frequency 95.9 MHz in Lauderhill, Florida on July 21, 2009, February 4, 2010, and March 7, 2010, without a Commission authorization. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1290A1.html
      • into account the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude that a $20,000 proposed forfeiture is justified in light of AllCom's apparent failure to provide a response to the LOI. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that AllCom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1308A1.html
      • Omnibus NAL, each of the companies listed in the Appendix provided evidence that they had, in fact, timely submitted a CPNI certification filing for the 2007 calendar year. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kurt A.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1346A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Blake. Blake has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Dexter Blake IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-138A1.html
      • Forfeiture to Ayustar in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Ayustar submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Ayustar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1442A1.html
      • history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. LSM Radio's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining LSM Radio's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-153A1.html
      • keeping with Commission precedent and that, in several instances, licensees were only admonished for public file violations. Gaston College also asserts that the forfeiture should be reduced in light of its record of compliance with the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1592A1.html
      • ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Taking this standard into account, and based upon the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Nassau Broadcasting III, L.L. C., licensee of Station WWEG(FM), Myersville, Maryland, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-15A1.html
      • for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Jerry and Deborah Stevens submitted a response to the NAL denying that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and requesting that the matter be dropped. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Jerry and Deborah Stevens' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1648A1.html
      • in 2009. Under the circumstances presented herein, we conclude that Turner engaged in the unauthorized transfer of control and unauthorized assignment of the 49 subject licenses in apparent willful violation of section 310(d) of the Act, and sections 25.119 and 1.948 of the Rules. 8. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." In this regard, we note that every case presents a unique set of circumstances and turns on
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1654A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1657A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1659A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1671A1.html
      • we find that Ms. Lubin apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequency 90.1 MHz from her residence in North Miami, Florida on September 9 and October 22, 2009, and on April 22 and May 12, 2010. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1707A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Christopher M. Myers IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1803A1.html
      • Taxi nevertheless continued its unlicensed operations. Based on the evidence before us, we find that American Taxi apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 152.3900 MHz from its business in Daytona Beach, Florida on September 27 and 28 and November 22, 2009. 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operating a radio station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1842A1.html
      • provided evidence that it did not begin to provide service until January 2006, and therefore was not required to file CPNI certifications for the years prior to 2006. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Amp'd Mobile, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1843A1.html
      • in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Oneida provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Oneida County Rural Telephone Co. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1844A1.html
      • of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). CTI filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer active. We therefore find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Capital Telecommunications, Inc. to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1845A1.html
      • no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Key provided evidence that it was no longer a Commission licensee when the NAL was issued. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Key Communications, LLC d/b/a West Virginia Wireless to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1846A1.html
      • writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules. Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Mechanicsville Telephone Company to its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1907A1.html
      • on February 11, 2010. Morris operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Morris operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1908A1.html
      • on February 11, 2010. Brown operated a radio station without the requisite Commission authorization. Because Brown operated the station knowingly, we find that the violation of section 301 of the Act was willful. Because the operation took place on more than one day, we find that the violation was repeated. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1911A1.html
      • find that the companies listed in the Appendix did not violate section 222 of the Act, section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, or the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order. Consequently, we conclude that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-1975A1.html
      • for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false certification that it had not violated the Communication's Act or any Commission rules during the preceding license term, although not made with the intent to deceive the Commission, had no reasonable basis and therefore, apparently violated section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S:1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.17 ("... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In any written or oral statement of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-19A1.html
      • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"); and (3) the Commission has not complied with its obligations under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"). We reject these arguments, as explained in detail below. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2030A1.html
      • the unlicensed station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the operation. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Chery apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating a radio station on 90.5 MHz in Spring Valley, New York without the requisite Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2040A1.html
      • failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2041A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2043A1.html
      • the Rules. Stone/Collins submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Stone/Collins does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Stone/Collins' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2044A1.html
      • Rules. Rodgson submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay. Rodgson's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Rodgson's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2046A1.html
      • by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that MGA is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 4. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2049A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2057A1.html
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $18,000 for Meridian's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Meridian Marketing Group Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government for the sum of $18,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2097A1.html
      • MHz, but nonetheless continued to operate on that frequency. We therefore find that the violation was willful and repeated. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Beacon apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating a Studio Transmitter Link on an unauthorized frequency. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with excessive power is $4,000 and for operation on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. The base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2120A1.html
      • on the evidence before us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Mapleton apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained at the Station KXDZ main studio. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2156A1.html
      • before us, we find that Mr. Smith apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain all required issues/programs lists in the station's public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000; (3) failure to repaint the antenna structure is $10,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2187A1.html
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs." 47 C.F.R S: 74.801 47 C.F.R S: 74.870. 47 C.F.R S: 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R S:S: 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2188A1.html
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs." 47 C.F.R S: 74.801 47 C.F.R S: 74.870. 47 C.F.R S: 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R S:S: 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2189A1.html
      • person or organization engaged in the production of television programs." 47 C.F.R S: 74.801 47 C.F.R S: 74.870. 47 C.F.R S: 74.851(f). See Part 2, Subpart I of the Rules, 47 C.F.R S:S: 2.801 - 2.815. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2190A1.html
      • Requested, to Comfort Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2191A1.html
      • Requested to Holiday Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2192A1.html
      • to Timber Ridge Lodge at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2193A1.html
      • Receipt Requested to Ridgway at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2194A1.html
      • to Best Western Rambler at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2195A1.html
      • to Platte Valley Inn at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nikki P. Shears District Director Denver District Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2220A1.html
      • http://www.hobby-lobby.com/jeti-duplex.htm (last visited November 22, 2010). 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2226A1.html
      • failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to timely post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2235A1.html
      • on inability to pay and imposed a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000. On February 2, 2010, Ayustar filed a petition for reconsideration requesting reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture based on its net losses rather than its gross revenues. III. DISCUSSION 3. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ayustar's petition, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2240A1.html
      • radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Jammer World is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Jammer World to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2250A1.html
      • 14. We therefore find that East Buchanan is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of $45,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing aid- compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii) of the Rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) for willful and repeated violation of sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and 20.19(d)(3(ii) of the Rules. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this Notice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2268A1.html
      • main studio does not have any designated personnel. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that J.M.J. Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station WQOR main studio during regular business hours. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2276A1.html
      • violation also occurred on more than one day, and was therefore repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Coss apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KCKX(AM) in accordance with the station's authorized power as specified on its license. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 per violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2277A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $4,500 for General Equipment's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that General Equipment & Supply IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2282A1.html
      • information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A. Wild Assistant Division
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2295A1.html
      • lease, noncompliant radio frequency devices. Therefore, as a seller of such devices, Everbuying.com is also responsible for understanding and complying with FCC rules. As noted, supra, it is a violation of the Communications Act and the Rules for Everbuying.com to sell these jammer devices to individuals in the United States. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2306A1.html
      • Mr. de Almeida submitted a response to the Second NAL requesting cancellation of the forfeiture based on his claim that he did not operate a radio transmitter on an unlicensed basis and his inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. de Almeida's responses, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2309A1.html
      • to consumers, and by terminating all business with the entities that the FCC has determined are apparently violating the junk fax rules. We therefore conclude that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL should not be imposed. IV. ordering clauses 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $13,500 issued to CyberData, Inc. in the July 18, 2007 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for willful and repeated violations of a Commission order WILL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2319A1.html
      • licensees have the affirmative obligation to prevent misleading announcements respecting the contests that they conduct. They cannot rely on implications to accomplish that result. We therefore find that Good Karma violated Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by failing to fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the Contest. 12. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the contest rules is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2338A1.html
      • The violation was willful because Dollar consciously and deliberately used its land mobile radios on the frequency 452.250 MHz without the requisite Commission authorization. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Dollar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation of a station without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2347A1.html
      • December 22, 2009, when WTB granted BASF's STA request. By operating station WPNZ510 after the license expiration date, BASF apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. BASF also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPNZ510. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-234A1.html
      • reasons, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206. 10. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." In another case involving the same licensee, we proposed a $16,000 forfeiture for very similar conduct. The events underlying that proceeding
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2371A1.html
      • information provided by the companies, we agree that each of the companies listed in the Appendix were not required to file a CPNI certification for calendar year 2007. Consequently, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Omnibus NAL against the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kimberly A.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2428A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a specific rule
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2435A1.html
      • a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that CT Communications is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in section 503 of the Act.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2436A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2439A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 13. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2440A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-24A1.html
      • the NAL on January 15, 2009. In its Response, Mt. Rushmore argues that its violations were not willful, that the violations were corrected after the inspection took place, and that the violations were not discovered during a prior inspection. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining the Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-25A1.html
      • Forfeiture to Verizon in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.4(a) and 17.21(a) of the Rules. Verizon submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Verizon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-268A1.html
      • response, Abacus does not dispute any of the findings in the NAL, but requests a cancellation or reduction based on its inability to pay and its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-269A1.html
      • unauthorized location because it relied on the coordinates provided in its lease with the tower owner. In addition, SDACH requests that we cancel or reduce the proposed forfeiture in light of SDACH's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining SDACH's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-26A1.html
      • maintain the issues/programs lists was not willful, but merely an oversight by new management that took over in September 2006. R-S Broadcasting further claims that the forfeiture amount should be reduced because of R-S Broadcasting's demonstrated inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining R-S Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-287A1.html
      • operating station WPQD526 after the station's license expiration date of June 1, 2005, the University apparently violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. The University also acted in apparent violation of Section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPQD526. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-292A1.html
      • Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-293A1.html
      • Companies set forth in Appendix I of this Order, by failing to submit an annual compliance certificate, have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each of the Companies listed in Appendix I of this Order are hereby LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) each for willfully or repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit annual
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-390A1.html
      • no grant of authority ever issued by the Commission approving an assignment or transfer of control of station licenses concerning this frequency to Lubbock Aero. Thus, it appears that Lubbock Aero violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 123.300 MHz without Commission authority. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was committing or omitting the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-3A1.html
      • Such forfeiture amount may be adjusted upward or downward depending upon the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. In the instant case, we have taken into consideration Shop at Home Holding's failure over a period of more than two years to file corrective applications. On balance and after applying the factors set forth in Sections 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 is appropriate in this instance. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Shop at Home Holdings,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-455A1.html
      • the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time broker that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. C. Forfeiture Amount 14. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-456A1.html
      • the Station was complying with the Commission's rules. In this regard, Birach can only relay assurances he has received from the time brokers that the Station's EAS tests were performed regularly and that the Station's public inspection files were properly maintained and provided to the public upon request. C. Forfeiture Amount 13. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an unauthorized transfer of control is $8,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . .
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-477A1.html
      • list on July 1, 2004. See Complaint at 20, S.A. See Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 15 FCC Rcd 3236 (2000); Multimedia Cablevision, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 11 FCC Rcd 11202, 11208 (1996); Comark Cable Fund III v. Northwestern Indiana Telephone Co., 100 FCC2d 1244, 1259 (1985). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(e). See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22568, 22581, at P: 29 (1998). We note that "Defendants" does not include Verizon Communications. See supra P: 21. See Letter from Russ Smith to David Hunt, Senior Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau (April 15, 2005); see also Consumer.net LLC, et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-492A1.html
      • prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the 503(b) factors to the facts and circumstances presented here, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 is appropriate in this case. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, that Journal Broadcast Corporation, licensee of Station KJOT(FM), Boise, Idaho, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-580A1.html
      • no basis for reconsideration. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed on October 26, 2009, by Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., IS DENIED, and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-586A1.html
      • documents be provided "within a reasonable period of time, which generally should not exceed 7 days." CRFI's explanation that the delay was caused by inadvertence or employee oversight is inadequate. As noted above, inadvertence or employee oversight do not excuse CRFI from liability for its failure to follow Commission rules. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-632A1.html
      • ("Houston Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $18,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-633A1.html
      • ("Houston Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC dba Almega Cable Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 17.4(g), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-669A1.html
      • comply with the FCC's requirements concerning the marketing of radio frequency devices in the United States. Accordingly, we conclude that Phonejammer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing two models of phone jammers in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-690A1.html
      • upward." Finally, WXDJ argues that the "national economy and the decrease in broadcaster revenues in general" warrant a reduction in the forfeiture amount. We reject these arguments as explained in detail below. III. discussion 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-756A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Senat. Mr. Senat has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Balthazard Senat IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-766A1.html
      • impose a total forfeiture of $22,500 for Cost Crunch's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Cost Crunch, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $22,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-777A1.html
      • business hours. HTV filed a response ("Response") on May 22, 2009. In its Response, HTV does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL but requests that the forfeiture amount be reduced based on its inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-77A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-782A1.html
      • reduce the TPO during the inspection. Therefore, on January 7, 2010, the station exceeded the maximum TPO and maximum ERP. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Caribevision apparently willfully violated Section 74.735(b)(2) of the Rules by exceeding the maximum ERP for a digital LPTV station. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed is $8,000 and the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-783A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that Hubbard apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that Hubbard apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, overpower nighttime operations, and not maintaining, and making available, a public inspection file are, respectively, $8,000, $4,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-784A1.html
      • before us, we find that World Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file. We also find that World Media apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amounts for not having operational EAS equipment installed, violation of transmitter control and metering requirements, and violation of public file rules are, respectively, $8,000, $3,000 and $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-78A1.html
      • violated the Act or a Commission rule. As discussed below, we conclude under this standard that Doro is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-798A1.html
      • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1219542, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Burken received the NAL, Burken has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Burken Broadcasting, LLC, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-799A1.html
      • for operation of radio transmitters without a license, in violation of Section 301 of the Act. Despite evidence that Tropicana received the NAL, Tropicana has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Tropicana Products, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-79A1.html
      • the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that East Kentucky Network is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-7A1.html
      • grant of certification for the MSR 300 on September 24, 2009. See FCC ID XOP-5840-SL-3000. See LOI Response at 4 and Exhibit C. Our investigation did not uncover similar evidence with respect to the marketing of the MSR 200. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1203. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1204. 47 C.F.R. S: 2.1205. See LOI Response at 3-4. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-07 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-07 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-7A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-800A1.html
      • in ownership information for antenna structure # 1014422, in violation of Section 17.57 of the Rules. Despite evidence that MRBI received the NAL, MRBI has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000 for repeatedly violating Section 17.57 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-801A1.html
      • with a valid authorization granted by the Commission, in violation of Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Despite evidence that Shimmick-Obayashi received the NAL, Shimmick-Obayashi has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for repeatedly violating Section 1.903(a) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-80A1.html
      • to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-81A1.html
      • Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that TCT Mobile is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to file the required status reports in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules and for its apparent willful violation of a Commission order to provide information. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-829A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Rolon. Rolon has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marixsa Rolon IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-82A1.html
      • Communications, Inc. (October 14, 2009). See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Esq. and Denise N. Smith, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 13, 2009). Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). To date, Firefly still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-82A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-830A1.html
      • Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Reid. Reid has not filed a response to the NAL or paid the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ronald Reid IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-83A1.html
      • its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-84A1.html
      • the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this standard, we conclude that Airo is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports in violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-85A1.html
      • Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 P: 112. We note that 7-Eleven's web site promotes four handset models for use with its SPEAK OUT program: the Sanyo 2400, LG5225, Nokia 1600 and Motorola C139. See http://www.7-eleven.com/NewsRoom/NewsRoom2008/7ElevenMakesPrepaidWirelessMor e Competitive. Thus, it does not appear that 7-Eleven falls within the de minimis exception. See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-85 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-85A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-90A1.html
      • ECPI in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 17.51(b) and 17.57 of the Rules. ECPI submitted a response to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining ECPI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-912A1.html
      • or other notice from the NANP administrator. See Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896, P: 5, n.22 (2003). See Aug. 6, 2009 Supp. LOI Response at 2; 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(e)(3). Id. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 52.17, 52.32, 54.706, 54.708, 54.711, 64.604 and 64.1195. 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(e)(3). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-912 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-912 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-912A1.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-913A1.html
      • not condition payment on receipt of an invoice or other notice from the NANP administrator. See 47 U.S.C. S: 254(d); 47 C.F.R. S: 54.706. See also Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896, P: 5, note 22 (2003) 47 C.F.R. S:S: 52.17, 52.32, 54.706, 54.711, 64.604 and 64.1195. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-913 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-913 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-913A1.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-930A1.html
      • John Marick, CEO, Consumer Cellular, to Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 11, 2009) ("LOI Response"). LOI Response at 1. Id. at 2. LOI Response at 1-2. See Consumer Cellular, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report (filed November 8, 2009) at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020347130. LOI Response at 2. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 1 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-930 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-930A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-931A1.html
      • $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry); Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3688 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry). 47 U.S.C. S: 610(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-931 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-931A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-932A1.html
      • benchmarks is appropriate with regard to "service providers that are not Tier I nationwide providers, including regional and smaller providers, such as Tier II and Tier III carriers, and other service providers such as resellers and MVNOs."). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 2 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-932 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-932A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-933A1.html
      • such as resellers and MVNOs."). See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, 25 FCC Rcd 344, 346 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). To date, Circle K still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report. We note that on January 11, 2010, Circle K did file its report that was due January 15, 2010. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-933 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-933A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-934A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Movida sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.movidacelular.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 P: 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to "service providers that are not Tier
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-935A1.html
      • Commission, to David Inns, President, GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug (December 1, 2009). See Letter from Todd Slamowitz, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP, counsel for GreatCall, Inc. d/b/a Jitterbug, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (December 15, 2009). ("Response") See Response at 2. Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(1). Id. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 1 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-935 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-935A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-937A1.html
      • for its willful refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). According to its web site, Liberty sells prepaid telephones and airtime for those telephones. See http://www.libertywireless.com (last visited May 12, 2010). See e.g., Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3424 P: 46 (concluding that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting the handset deployment benchmarks is appropriate with regard to "service providers that are not Tier
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-938A1.html
      • See 7-Eleven, Inc., Citation, DA 10-85 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., released January 14, 2010). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h). See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 P: 112. As of March 2, 2010, PlatinumTel's web site did not evidence compliance with section 20.19(h) of the Rules. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). See 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 1 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-938 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-938A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-995A1.html
      • Dad" episode does not excuse in any way Fox's obligation to provide the requested information. In light of well-established Commission precedent, therefore, Fox's failure to respond to the Bureau's LOI and March 19th Letter constitutes apparent willful and repeated violations of a Commission Order and of Section 73.1015. A. Proposed Forfeiture 15. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . .
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-132A1.html
      • Commission's related rules and orders by delivering at least 15 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the six consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Media Synergy Group, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $67,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Media Synergy Group, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $67,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), sections 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(2), and the related orders described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-152A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $77,500 for Troescher's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Troescher Typing Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $77,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-156A1.html
      • telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 33 unsolicited advertisements to the 15 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Clean Credit, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $528,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Clean Credit, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $528,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-160A1.html
      • machine, computer, or other device to send at least seventy-three unsolicited advertisements to the sixty-nine consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $345,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $345,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-162A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,533,000 for Hot Lead's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Hot Lead LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,533,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-163A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $125,500 for RMG's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that RMG Communications IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $125,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-164A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $806,500 for SMC's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that SMC, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $806,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-165A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $139,500 for Clean Credit's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. I. ordering clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Clean Credit, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $139,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-166A1.html
      • and we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $50,000 for Sunstar's willful and repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.S: 1.80(f)(4), that Sunstar IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $50,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the paragraphs above.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-167A1.html
      • impose a total forfeiture of $144,000 for Tropical Travel's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Tropical Travel Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $144,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and related orders. 7. Payment of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-168A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $45,000 for Atlas's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. III. ordering clauses 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Atlas Advertising, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $45,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-169A1.html
      • us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $257,500 for SOS's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that SOS Marketing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $257,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-170A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $27,000 for Advanced Steel's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Advanced Steel Concepts, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $27,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders as described
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-190A1.html
      • computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 11 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $55,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $55,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-19A1.html
      • its Forfeiture Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Application for Review filed by International Broadcasting Corporation IS DENIED and the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 9. Payment of the $10,400 forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order on Review. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-28A1.html
      • in its Forfeiture Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, that the Application for Review filed by Tidewater Communications LLC IS DENIED and the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 14. Payment of the $8,000 shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order on Review. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-48A1.html
      • form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Globalcom's operating authority, including disqualification of Globalcom's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Globalcom is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $800,700 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-78A1.html
      • form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of NTS's operating authority, including disqualification of NTS's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that NTS Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $284,250 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/FCC-10-80A1.html
      • have determined that Silv Communication Inc. has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1120. 19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Silv Communication Inc. is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,480,000 for willful or repeated violations of sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201(b), 258, and section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules and orders as described above. 20. IT IS FURTHER
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1000A1.html
      • consciously operated his CB station with an amplifier, we find that the apparent violations were willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Hays apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and sections 95.410 and 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1025A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Voip Alliance and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Voip Alliance, LLC SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1026A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Touch-Tel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Touch-Tel USA, LLC. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1028A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Phone Club and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Phone Club Corporation. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1029A1.html
      • our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nu Era Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Nu Era Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Telefonica Latina SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1031A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise DigitGlobal Communications and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that DigitGlobal Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1032A1.html
      • noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Straightel and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Straightel, Inc. d/b/a Idealtel.com SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1043A1.html
      • of the Act. American Taxi submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture arguing that: (1) it was operating pursuant to a license, and (2) it was never warned that its actions violated the Act. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining American Taxi's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1050A1.html
      • 12, 2009. In its Response, Lazer Broadcasting argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled, because Lazer Broadcasting is not a licensee, or reduced, because there was no harm caused by its failure to update both antenna structure registrations. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Based on our review
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1054A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Bazile. Mr. Bazile has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Marckenson Bazile IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1062A1.html
      • main studio on the day of inspection as required by section 73.3526 of the Rules. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Wall apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WLSW's public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1093A1.html
      • of the alien ownership restrictions. America Movil is therefore apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $8,000 for its willful violation of section 310(b)(4) of the Act and the 2007 MO&O and Declaratory Ruling. The Commission's rules provide, however, that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation ... and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." We conclude that America Movil's ability to pay warrants an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount. To ensure that a proposed forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1111A1.html
      • communications to facilitate the activities of an adult individual and his or her immediate family members. See 47 C.F.R. S:95.179. A non-individual (any entity that is not an individual - such as corporations, partnerships, associations, governmental units etc.) is not eligible to obtain a license for a new GMRS system. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1123A1.html
      • the public inspection file was not made available at that time. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available, during more than one visit, a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain a main studio with a meaningful staff presence is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1142A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1164A1.html
      • WL 242469 (OET, May 13, 1996). The LawMate 500 mW 2.4 GHz and 1 W 2.4 GHz transmitters operate on frequencies outside of the authorized amateur radio service bands, including restricted frequencies listed in section 15.205(a). Thus, these devices are not amateur radio devices exempt from the equipment certification requirements. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1165A1.html
      • models of wireless microphones do not operate on frequencies allocated for low power auxiliary stations under Part 74. See 47 C.F.R. S: 74.802. Accordingly, these wireless microphones are not eligible for certification as Part 74 devices. See e.g. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.216, 74.802(e). The Commission's Rules are available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=201047. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.17 ("... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1170A1.html
      • VNR material seeking to persuade them. We find by a preponderance of the evidence that Fox's airing of VNR material on Station KMSP-TV's June 19, 2006 news program without providing a sponsorship identification announcement violated section 317 of the Act and section 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. A. The Fifteen Day Period for Fox's NAL Response was Reasonable under Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules 16. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules provides that when the Bureau issues a Notice of Apparent Liability, the "[r]espondent will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1174A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Antonio Robinson IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1183A1.html
      • of these transactions until after each had been consummated, and (ii) did not disclose four of the eight transactions until the Enforcement Bureau's investigation and only after WCB had granted the applications. The violation periods range from approximately 2.5 months to approximately 3.5 months. 6. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing Rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1194A1.html
      • the file was located. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Spirit apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file at its main studio and apparently willfully failed to make available its public inspection file upon request. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000, for AM tower fencing is $7,000, and for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1217A1.html
      • affirmative steps to terminate the lease with the unidentified renter; (4) a broadcasting outfit known as WBIG is responsible for any unlicensed operations on 95.9 MHz and 91.7 MHz; and (5) he does not hold any pecuniary interest in WBIG. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"), and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Petition, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1233A1.html
      • they believed the radio station complied with all FCC regulations; (3) they ceased operating the station as soon as they became aware that it was illegal; and (4) they do not have the financial resources to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 7. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Alleyne's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1243A1.html
      • measures described above, the unusual circumstances preventing construction, and the appointment of a receiver are all relevant to our consideration of any forfeiture, and in this case to our determination to impose no forfeiture penalty. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., in the above captioned proceeding WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent both by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Spirit of Alaska Broadcasting, Inc., at 2200 East Parks Highway, Wasilla,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1244A1.html
      • and based upon additional information provided by RAMCO, we are persuaded that RAMCO did not own the antenna structure during the violations cited in the NAL and agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to RAMCO Broadband Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by both Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to RAMCO Broadband Services at 726 US Highway 202 Suite 320-119, Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2737. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dennis P. Carlton Regional
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1258A1.html
      • an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Dezco Communications, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Dezco Communications WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Dezco Communications, Inc., Attn. Ronald F. Zeiler, President, 13506 S. Kenton St., Crestwood, IL 60445. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1259A1.html
      • opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Galaxy Internet Services, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Galaxy Internet Services WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Galaxy Internet Services, Attn. Robert Carp, President, 188 Needham St., Suite 110R, Newton, MA 02464. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-125A1.html
      • Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See http://www.deadlydeal.com/thecommunity.php?page=19 (last visited on 1/24/2011). We note that the device is currently listed on the web site with the date "January 16, 2010." See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S:1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1266A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $22,000 to Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Judith V. Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1272A1.html
      • unavailable to the public for a period of four months. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that HK Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available the Station KFOX public inspection file at the station's main studio. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1311A1.html
      • that Rapidwave apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating an intentional radiator in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with its Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. 15. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1312A1.html
      • MHz, 5650 MHz, 5670 MHz, and 5725 MHz in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Sling apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on January 5 and 10, 2011. 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1313A1.html
      • Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ayustar apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1314A1.html
      • on the frequencies 5540 MHz or 5600 MHz in Kansas City, Missouri. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Insight apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on February 4 and 18, 2011. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1323A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Rhodd. Mr. Rhodd has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Mikhail Rhodd IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-135A1.html
      • 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1386A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $12,000 to Miller Communications. Miller Communications has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Miller Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for violations of section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1435A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Patrick Michael Ford, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1468A1.html
      • manual in willful and repeated violation of section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the Rules. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or any Rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. Under section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, we may assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, broadcast licensee or cable operator a forfeiture of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1475A1.html
      • dispatch channel rather than its licensed main dispatch channel on 159.150 MHz. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Gutierrez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 333 of the Act by willfully and maliciously interfering with the LVPD's licensed operations, on February 15, 2011, and February 16, 2011. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1491A1.html
      • PLMRS station without Commission authority from June 15, 2007 until September 10, 2010, when its STA request was granted. By operating station WQFD453 for a period of more than three years after the license had been cancelled, Northeast Utilities apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 6. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1497A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1503A1.html
      • causing direct interference with air traffic control. Power admitted that the station used this transmitter from March 19, 2010 until June 11, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Power apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules by utilizing a non-certified LPFM transmitter. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating with unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1505A1.html
      • file maintenance"; (4) its broadcast of "programming responsive to community needs and interests during the two years prior to the NAL," and (5) its post-inspection efforts to remedy the public inspection file violation. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining CBC's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1506A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 8. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand, five hundred dollars ($17,500) for violations of sections 1.903(a), 1.947(a), 11.35(a), 73.3526, and 74.532(e) of the Commission's rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1528A1.html
      • tower rules and $10,000 for the apparent violation of the Commission's public inspection file requirements. On December 19, 2008, Taylor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Taylor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1529A1.html
      • Act and section 63.18 of the Rules because it failed to obtain Commission approval before providing international telecommunications service. The Commission has consistently imposed forfeiture penalties in the amount of $100,000 for failing to obtain an international section 214 authorization before providing international telecommunications service. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." There is no evidence before us to suggest that the base amount should be adjusted in any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1536A1.html
      • in turn, could have impacted the Auction No. 86 results. Thus, the Commission was unable to determine both the actual amount owed by VTel, and whether VTel was still entitled to the small business bidding credit, until after Mr. Hewlett's full income was disclosed. 13. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Consistent with Commission precedent, we find that a base forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1538A1.html
      • nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Meriden and Jefferson systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1539A1.html
      • does not nullify or mitigate any prior violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file the required FCC Form 320s for the Perry and Lecompton systems for calendar years 2009 and 2010. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1540A1.html
      • does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that SCI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1803 of the Rules by failing to file its required FCC Form 320s for the Pottawatomie system for calendar years 2009 and 2010. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000 and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1572A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to Sling. Sling has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Sling Broadband, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1577A1.html
      • acknowledging that he committed the violation, but denying that he "used the radio knowing that it was illegal." Mr. Lindor also requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture because he asserts that he cannot afford the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lindor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1578A1.html
      • the Rules. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Lebron apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1579A1.html
      • "made the changes [he] had to." Mr. Hays requests cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture, however, because he lives solely on social security benefits and asserts that, as a result, he cannot afford to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Hays's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-157A1.html
      • Act directs us to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." As we explain below, having considered the statutory factors, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000. 9. Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a radio station without Commission authority. Based on the record in this proceeding, we propose a forfeiture of $10,000 for Scottsdale Lexus's unauthorized operations. 10. We note that the base forfeiture amount is subject to adjustment, either upward or downward. Here, however, we find no basis for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1580A1.html
      • total forfeiture of $4,500 for Western Aviation's willful or repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules for the reasons set forth in the NAL and herein. IV. ordering clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Western Aviation, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $4,500 for willfully violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1584A1.html
      • apparently willfully violating section 333 of the Act by maliciously interfering with the USCG on Marine Channel 16. In his response, Perka admits to the findings in the NAL, but requests a reduction based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Perka's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1641A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1651A1.html
      • has not been assigned a community unit number or physical system number. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that St. George apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 76.1801 of the Rules by failing to submit a registration statement with the Commission on FCC Form 322. 11. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; for violation of rules relating to distress and safety frequencies is $8,000; and for failing to file required forms is $3,000. Cable signal leakage in the aeronautical bands constitutes harmful interference to distress and safety frequencies. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1661A1.html
      • Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers, and Other Jamming Devices, Retailers Advised that the Marketing or Sale of Devices Designed to Block, Jam, or Interfere with Authorized Radio Communications Is Strictly Prohibited in the U.S., Public Notice, DA 11-249 (Feb. 9, 2011), available at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement; New Generation Hobbies, Citation, DA 11-1164 (July 1, 2011). See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5). See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See id. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). We expressly reserve the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1675A1.html
      • NAL, we will not consider them here. 8. We also deny Mr. Skalecki's request for an evidentiary hearing under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, which states that "[a]t the discretion of the Commission, a forfeiture penalty may be determined against a person .. after notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Commission or an administrative law judge...." Section 1.80(g) of the Rules states that procedures for hearings "will ordinarily be followed only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture...." Section 1.80(g) of the Rules further states that "these procedures may be followed whenever the Commission, in its discretion, determines that they will better serve the ends of justice." Accordingly, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1704A1.html
      • issues/programs lists and, in any event, were not in the public file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Meade apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WMMG's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public files rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1710A1.html
      • show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 4. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Blue Casa, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on Blue Casa. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued to Blue Casa Communications, Inc. WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Katherine Barker Marshall, Attorney, Arent Fox LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-5339. FEDERAL
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1720A1.html
      • for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545 (Enf. Bur. 2003) ($10,000 forfeiture for a non-responsive reply to an LOI); Digital Antenna, Inc., Sunrise, Florida, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7600 (Spectrum Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2007) ($11,000 forfeiture for failure to provide complete responses to an LOI). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See id. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1721A1.html
      • equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Upper Peninsula apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Powers, Michigan. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1722A1.html
      • the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1730A1.html
      • against Mr. Morey for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Morey submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting that he "is in no position to be able to pay" the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Morey's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1734A1.html
      • Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by LSM Radio Partners, L.L.C. IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the forfeiture is reduced to four thousand seven hundred dollars ($4,700). 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1737A1.html
      • was issued after the expiration of the statute of limitations, Clarion claims in the alternative that it is entitled to a reduction in the amount of the proposed forfeiture based on its history of compliance with the Commission's rules. II. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Clarion's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1738A1.html
      • that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 8. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Paisa 2 Car and Limousine Service, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for violations of section 1.903(a) of the rules. 9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1743A1.html
      • Mr. Fleurinor for violation of section 301 of the Act. Mr. Fleurinor submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, asserting the forfeiture "would create an impossible burden for Mr. Fleurinor to bear or satisfy." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Fleurinor's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1745A1.html
      • to notify the Commission that it had acquired antenna structure number 1246297. Based on the evidence before us, we find that P&Y Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to immediately notify the Commission about a change in ownership for antenna structure number 1246297. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to file forms or required information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-174A1.html
      • or cancelling the proposed forfeiture. Based on the information before us, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $20,000 for See Through Windows's willful and repeated violation of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111, 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows & Doors LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1750A1.html
      • consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Criteser apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1755A1.html
      • it had not maintained a public file since the public library, where they previously maintained their public file, closed "several years ago." Accordingly, we find that R.J. willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a local public inspection file. 9. Proposed Action. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000; operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000; and failing to maintain a public inspection file is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1756A1.html
      • the San Francisco Office to respond. In his Response, Roberts acknowledges his involvement with PCR, but argues that he is not associated with the transmissions of PCR. Roberts also argues that he is "financially unable" to pay the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1769A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1771A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Intercel, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Intercel WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Intercel Telecoms Group, Inc., Attn. Joseph Gatt, CEO, 3914 Centreville Rd., Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1775A1.html
      • Mr. Cernogg operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was also repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cernogg apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1777A1.html
      • hereby impose a total forfeiture of $9,000 for AMS's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NALs and herein. IV. ordering clauses 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American Medical Services IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1779A1.html
      • and 11, 2011, an agent from the Houston Office observed Station KBRZ operating with its daytime power of 3200 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ACB apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1786A1.html
      • Requested, to Fireside Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1787A1.html
      • the Dublin House Motel at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-178A1.html
      • installed at either location from the time Bold Gold purchased the station in 2006 until February 2010. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Bold Gold apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35(a) of the Rules by failing to install the required EAS equipment for Station WWRR. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1794A1.html
      • Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 12. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1798A1.html
      • all of the violations set forth in the NAL and requesting cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture due to its limited station funding which "relies entirely on donations from the listener community." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Consolidated Radio's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1802A1.html
      • the gate on the northeast side of the Antenna Structure was still open. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Equity apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the antenna structure with an effective locked fence or enclosure. A. Proposed Forfeiture 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1807A1.html
      • its authorized nighttime, post-sunset and pre-sunrise power for more than one day; and conclude that CRNI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KPIO in accordance with the Station's authorized power, as specified on the Station's license, on more than one day. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1809A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-180A1.html
      • at the Torrance Airport, an action that violates the licensing requirements of Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Based on the evidence before us, we find that South Bay Aviation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 7. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1812A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1822A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $25,000 to Spirit. Spirit has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Spirit Broadcasting, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35, 73.49, and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1825A1.html
      • on its inability to pay the forfeiture. On July 7, 2011, Andrews Tower stated that the Tower was "in all respects lit in accordance with Commission requirements" and that it had obtained estimates for the demolition of the Tower. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Andrews Tower's response, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-182A1.html
      • February 25, 2010, by Rejoynetwork, LLC, IS DENIED, and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rejoynetwork, LLC is liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1834A1.html
      • Because he consciously operated with unauthorized amplifiers, we find that the apparent violation was willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Perry apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Act and section 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter with two amplifiers. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-184A1.html
      • by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for common carriers such as Cricket, the base forfeiture is $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. Given the totality of the circumstances, we find a significant forfeiture appropriate. The Commission has stated that "[we rely] heavily on
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1876A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by Unintec, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to Unitec WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Unitec Hospitality Service, Attn: Walter E. Bader, President, 122 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80209. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1877A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1911A1.html
      • the evidence before us, we find that CIT apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(1) and 74.851(f) of the Rules by manufacturing and marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, two models of the Modulus video assist transmitters, in the United States. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1914A1.html
      • violated section 303(q) of the Act and sections 17.51(a) and 17.57 of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure for over two months, and by failing to update the ownership information for the Antenna Structure for over two years. B. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. The base forfeiture for failure to make required notifications, including ownership notifications, is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1919A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to St. George. St. George has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, St. George Cable, Inc. LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $25,000 for violations of sections 11.35(a), 76.605(a)(12), 76.611(a) and 76.1801 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1921A1.html
      • IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND MODIFIED IN PART and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, Forever of PA, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for willful violations of sections 17.47, 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Commission's Rules. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card, check, or similar instrument, payable
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1944A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1975A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $15,000 to Mr. Criteser. Mr. Criteser has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, John E. Criteser, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1976A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Neal Davis IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1977A1.html
      • had not been operational since the station was vandalized in December of 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that MMG apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KRDD(AM) EAS equipment. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1998A1.html
      • for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for "[e]gregious misconduct," or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an "[i]ntentional violation" or "[r]epeated or continuous violation." 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2012A1.html
      • Commission approval before consummating a substantial transfer of control of a domestic Section 214 authorization. Iowa Telecom did not file an application for Commission approval until December 14, 2009, more than 6 months after its July 1, 2009 transfer of control. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a base forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2034A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2035A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a specific rule
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2042A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 5. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2060A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2061A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2075A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2076A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2077A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2078A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2079A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 8. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid compatibility requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-2080A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-216A1.html
      • public file are reasonable, here, Community Television did not briefly delay access to the file - it denied any access, absent an appointment. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Community Television apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527(c) by failing to make available Station KCET's public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-229A1.html
      • recent license application. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that CBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file. We also find that CBC apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (2) violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-231A1.html
      • Media East apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file at the Station WLGT main studio. We also find that Media East apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file at the time of inspection. 6. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-232A1.html
      • Because Mr. Aversa knowingly operated on Marine Safety Channel 16 and other Marine channels, we find that the apparent violation is willful. Moreover, because agents observed Mr. Aversa's unlicensed operations on three separate occasions (all of which occurred after Mr. Aversa received multiple audio warnings from the USCG), we find that the apparent violation was repeated. 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-246A1.html
      • h. To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether the equipment authorization held by Shenzhen under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should be revoked. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(3)(A), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, whether a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) shall be issued against Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating sections 302(b) and 333 of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules. 20.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-247A1.html
      • research and development and beta testing of the device were ongoing by various manufacturer engineers and a prototype was pending. See LOI Response at 2. We note, however, that Just Driver Training indicated to Bureau staff that it recently returned the unit of the TxTStopper(TM) it had installed to Share. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5). See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-248A1.html
      • a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "[T]he order at issue here was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." Id. at 7591. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-258A1.html
      • on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on April 3, and April 7, 2010, Mr. Moreno apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-263A1.html
      • ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 to Foursquare Gospel for the violations listed above. Despite evidence that Foursquare Gospel received the NAL, Foursquare Gospel has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel DBA Radio Station KFSG FM, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 17.6(a), 17.47(a), 17.48, and 17.51(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-264A1.html
      • on the structure's FAA determination of "no hazard" in violation of Section 17.23 of the Rules. Despite evidence that Waldec received the NAL, Waldec has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Waldec Enterprises, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 17.23 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-273A1.html
      • that Utah Broadband apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 301 and 302(b) of the Act, and sections 15.1(b) and 15.1(c) of the Rules, by operating intentional radiators in a manner not in compliance with the Part 15 Rules, in a manner inconsistent with their Equipment Authorization and, consequently, without authorization. 15. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000 and the base forfeiture for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-289A1.html
      • such agreement. We therefore conclude that the proposed forfeiture in the NAL issued to Ureach should not be imposed because it did not have a "high degree of involvement in, or actual notice of, the unlawful activity." III. ordering clauses 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, the proposed forfeiture in the amount of $9,000 issued to Ureach Technologies, Inc. in the July 17, 2008 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-292A1.html
      • subject conversations, without providing the required notice, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206. 8. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a telephone conversation. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." We note that Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., the parent company of the Licensee, has a history of violating the Commission's rules,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-306A1.html
      • Rules. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that AT&T apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 302(b) of the Act and section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter without DFS capability on a frequency for which it was required on December 7 and 8, 2010. 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-352A1.html
      • inspection file and found that it was missing nine quarterly issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Cumulus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WWIZ's public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-365A1.html
      • We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Think 12 and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b) and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Think 12 Corporation d/b/a Hello Depot SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-371A1.html
      • and Order have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules and have apparently willfully or repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to provide certain information. We find each of the Companies apparently liable for a forfeiture of $29,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, each Company listed in Appendix I of this Order is hereby NOTIFIED of their APPARANT LIABLILITY FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty nine thousand dollars ($29,000) each for willfully and repeatedly violating section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by failing to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-373A1.html
      • than one day, it was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Spanish apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating on frequency 21241.5 MHz with an antenna azimuth of approximately 160DEG, a frequency and antenna azimuth not authorized in its license. 12. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for using an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-394A1.html
      • from October 1, 2009 to March 23, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KFW apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47 of the Rules by failing to observe visually the Tower lighting at least once each 24 hours between October 1, 2009 and March 23, 2010. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-408A1.html
      • representations and test data submitted by the applicant. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(a). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031 - 2.1060. The SecurityMan SM-302T is certified under FCC ID TW4-AT202-900M to operate between 906 - 924 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.249(d). See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.209. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-421A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Nationwide Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Nationwide Telecom, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-422A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Calmtel USA and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Calmtel USA, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-423A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Diamond Phone and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Diamond Phone Card, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-424A1.html
      • amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise USA Teleport and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that USA Teleport, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-431A1.html
      • one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on March 16, August 24 and August 31, 2010, Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-443A1.html
      • operating overpower on February 26, 2010, it continued its overpower operations on September 22, 2010 and September 24, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ace of Hearts apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 74.1235(e) of the Rules by operating above its authorized transmitter output power. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000 and the base forfeiture amount for the use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-449A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules ("Rules"), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Kacy Rankine IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 5. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Kacy Rankine IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of section 301 of the Act. 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-457A1.html
      • the consequences of refusing to allow an inspection of a radio station. Based on the record evidence, we find that Ira Jones apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act and section 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to permit inspection of his CB radio station. IV. CONCLUSION 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-472A1.html
      • repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without Commission authorization on the frequencies 92.9 MHz, 93.7 MHz, and 104.3 MHz, on March 12, May 6, June 15, and July 23, 2010. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-475A1.html
      • 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules by delivering four unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the four consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that American West Advertising is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $18,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that American West is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $18,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-479A1.html
      • operating station WPMH780 after the license expiration date, Shubat apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Shubat also apparently violated section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPMH780 while continuing to operate the station beyond its license term. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-47A1.html
      • to Premier RV Resorts at its address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Binh Nguyen Resident Agent Portland Resident Agent Office Western Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-48A1.html
      • failed to function properly since December 2009, and that effective repairs were not made until April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that NCBC apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of Station KFSD's EAS equipment. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-521A1.html
      • that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. 19. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Fox is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-523A1.html
      • that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. 15. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Access.1 is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-549A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Aversa. Mr. Aversa has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Vincent E. Aversa IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act and section 80.13 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-550A1.html
      • Jerry Russell dba Custom Cable at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Douglas Miller District Director Atlanta Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-567A1.html
      • on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 16 and June 29, 2010, Mr. Bazile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-587A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-5A1.html
      • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.409. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-629A1.html
      • was notified of the outage on July 8, 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Andrews Tower apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Tower after sunset. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-630A1.html
      • of the Tower's lights. Also, Miller did not maintain an automatic light monitoring system. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Miller apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.47(a) of the Rules by failing to make observations of the Tower's lights at least once each 24 hours. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for failure to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-633A1.html
      • took after the agents' inspection on April 8, 2010. The Commission consistently has stated that "corrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations." Moreover, Harrah's concedes that it had not even applied for a license until after receipt of the LOI. 8. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation of a station without Commission authority and a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. Although we find no basis here for a downward adjustment given the circumstances of this case, we conclude that an upward adjustment of the total $13,000 base
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-65A1.html
      • still shows the previous structure owner as the owner. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that RAMCO apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in structure ownership from January 2, 2010 until January 12, 2011. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; and (2) failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base forfeiture amount for failure to post the ASR number. The Commission has determined, however, that an appropriate base forfeiture amount
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-676A1.html
      • Office") issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $6,000 to KFW. KFW has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, KFW Communications LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violations of section 17.47 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-704A1.html
      • 17745. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gene J. Stanbro District Director Philadelphia Office Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.605(a)(12), 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.610; see attached "Excerpts from 47 C.F.R. Part 76 related to Multichannel Video Programming Distributors." 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1804. 47 C.F.R. S: 76.605(a)(12). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-724A1.html
      • on the facts and circumstances described above, we find that A Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated a Bureau order by failing to comply with the terms of the Order and Consent Decree entered into between the Bureau and A Radio and issued pursuant to sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Act. 6. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules do not specify a base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with a Commission order. The Commission has stated, however that the "omission of a specific rule violation from the list [establishing base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission expects, and it is each licensee's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-734A1.html
      • did not notice the warning alert of the light outage before May 18, 2010. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CBS apparently repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act, and section 17.51(a) of the Rules, by failing to maintain the required red obstruction lighting on antenna structure #1014523. 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for failing to comply with the prescribed lighting and/or marking for an antenna structure is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-742A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-743A1.html
      • granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-802A1.html
      • Act and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, USAT's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 17. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED and that pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, USAT SHALL FORFEIT to the U.S. Government the sum of $20,000. 18. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion & Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-809A1.html
      • public inspection file and found that it was missing four quarters of issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Pilot Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WIBL's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. Because Station WIBL's public file was mostly complete, we conclude a reduction in the base forfeiture amount for the public file violation to $4,000 is appropriate. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-810A1.html
      • "meaningful management and staff presence." Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mattoon Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the main studio for Stations WLBH and WLBH-FM during regular business hours. 10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the AM fencing rule and $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-812A1.html
      • 333. 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b). 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). An "intentional radiator" is a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-816A1.html
      • we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, section 1.80, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Frandsen is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Frandsen Media Company, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-824A1.html
      • Mr. Smith submitted responses to the NAL requesting reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture, his prompt actions to remedy the violations, and his remorse. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Smith's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-825A1.html
      • such forfeiture should be imposed. 3. In response to the NAL, each cable operator sufficiently demonstrated that it had provided the advanced notice required under our rules. Therefore, we find that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures issued in the above captioned proceedings WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each counsel of record in the above captioned proceedings. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION P. Michele Ellison Chief, Enforcement Bureau
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-829A1.html
      • willful. Moreover, because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Alcime apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-830A1.html
      • Moreover, because the unlicensed operation occurred on more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Ford apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-831A1.html
      • the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find Mr. Morey apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission apparatus without a license on the frequency 88.3 MHz in St. Petersburg, Florida. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-832A1.html
      • more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on August 31 and on October 6, 2010, Mr. Rhodd apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-833A1.html
      • find the apparent violation willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Robinson apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-836A1.html
      • we find that the violations of section 303(n) of the Act were repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Garcia apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing to allow inspection of radio transmission equipment on May 6, 2010, and June 15, 2010. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to allow inspection of radio equipment is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-860A1.html
      • violation was willful. Because the operation occurred on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Millwood apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-861A1.html
      • more than one day, we find that the apparent violation was repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 8, 9, and 10, 2010, Mr. Lindor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-870A1.html
      • business hours and did not contain the station's service contour map, political file, or any issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Consolidated Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. 9. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of main studio rule is $7,000, for public inspection file violations is $10,000 and for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-871A1.html
      • willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 27, 2010, Ms. Smith apparently willfully violated section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by Commission agents to inspect the radio installation located inside her residence while the station was in operation. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-874A1.html
      • June 2, 2008, and he submitted cell phone records in support of this claim. Torres also submitted his most recent three years of federal tax returns to support his request for a reduction based on an inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Torres's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-876A1.html
      • manager also admitted that he had not been properly maintaining the antenna site. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Sickafus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to maintain two of Station WWSM's antenna towers within effective locked fences or other enclosures. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-881A1.html
      • years. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Warmath apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a public inspection file and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a public inspection file for Station WIRJ(AM). 8. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000, for EAS equipment that is not installed or operational is $8,000, and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-886A1.html
      • us, including the fact that the public inspection file was missing multiple quarters of material, we find that Lazer apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the rules by failing to ensure a complete public inspection file was properly maintained and made available at the Station KSSB main studio. 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violations of the public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-887A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $15,000 to Brown. Brown has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Robert Brown IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-889A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $15,000 to Morris. Morris has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Lloyd Morris IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $15,000 for violations of section 301 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-890A1.html
      • history of compliance with the Rules, its prompt action to repair its EAS equipment, and its inability to pay the forfeiture. World Media's response does not dispute the violations identified in the NAL. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining World Media's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-8A1.html
      • operating station WPKM300 after the station's license expiration date of April 16, 2007, Call Mobile apparently violated section 301 of the Act and section 1.903(a) of the Rules. Call Mobile also acted in apparent violation of section 1.949(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a renewal application for station WPKM300. 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Rules provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term "willful" means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-900A1.html
      • us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available complete public inspection files for Stations KQQZ and KZQZ and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. 13. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation with an improper radiation pattern for the pertinent time of day is $7,000, for failure to make required measurements is $2,000, and for violations of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-902A1.html
      • before us, we find that Entertainment Media Trust apparently willfully violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available public inspection files for Stations WQQX and WQQW and willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for those stations. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for each violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-924A1.html
      • C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b). An "intentional radiator" is a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 403. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-926A1.html
      • Because Mr. Clarke consciously operated the station on more than one day, the apparent violation was willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Clarke apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-938A1.html
      • the licensee for violation of section 73.3526 of the Rules. Media East submitted a response to the NAL denying that its public inspection file was incomplete and requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Media East's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-940A1.html
      • Mr. Peter's admitted that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Peters apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WHAW's public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-941A1.html
      • station manager confirmed that the station did not maintain issues/programs lists. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Ms. Woofter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in Station WVRW's public inspection file. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-954A1.html
      • lists are available in the Station KSKT-CA public inspection file. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Blue Skies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the Rules by failing to maintain the TV issues/programs lists and make them available in Station KSKT's public inspection file. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-971A1.html
      • Ms. Lubin for violation of section 301 of the Act. Ms. Lubin submitted a response to the NAL requesting cancellation of the proposed forfeiture because she claims she did not, and has not ever, operated an unlicensed radio station. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ms. Lubin's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-976A1.html
      • Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000. The Commission has found that the marketing of each separate unauthorized or non-compliant model constitutes a separate violation subject to the $7,000 base forfeiture amount. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation, or each
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-978A1.html
      • EAS equipment for more than one day, we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that CRS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install operational EAS equipment while the station was in operation. 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or not operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-982A1.html
      • EAS on more than one day, we find the apparent violation to be repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Comcast apparently willfully and repeatedly violated sections 11.35(a) and 11.51(h) of the Rules by failing to ensure that its EAS equipment was fully functional for all customers. 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-984A1.html
      • 2.803(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.655(a). See Response from the Commission's General Counsel to the U.S Customs Service, dated May 17, 1999, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (1999) (advising U.S. Customs Service that dual use CB and amateur radios are not acceptable for importation into the United States). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-98A1.html
      • any agency thereof shall be developed, procured, or otherwise acquired, including offshore procurement, under United States Government criteria, standards, or specifications designed to achieve the objectives of reducing interference to radio reception and to home electronic equipment and systems, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security.). See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq. 47 C.F.R. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-990A1.html
      • Angeles Office, Bondy filed a response on August 21, 2009, arguing that he did not commit the violations, that he did not refuse to allow the inspection, and that he lacks the ability to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 9. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining the Response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-994A1.html
      • forfeiture should be imposed. 3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information provided by the companies, we agree that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed on each of the companies listed in the Appendix. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued to the companies in the attached Appendix WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to each of the companies in the attached Appendix. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Richard A. Hindman Chief Telecommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-999A1.html
      • with our CPNI rules very seriously. This forfeiture order should advise 88 Telecom and other carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important carrier obligations. IV. ordering clauses 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that 88 Telecom Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-10A1.html
      • more than one person may use the same fax machine. That question is not at issue here and our decision here not to impose a forfeiture does not imply agreement with Progressive Business's views. II. ordering clauses 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeitures in the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against Progressive Business WILL NOT BE IMPOSED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), the citation issued to Progressive Business, Inc. by the Bureau
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-112A1.html
      • or other device to send 40 unsolicited advertisements to the 28 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Laser Technologies is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $252,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Laser Technologies is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $252,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-128A1.html
      • should be reduced or cancelled, we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $37,000 for Y Pay More's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act, and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Y Pay More IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $37,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 6. Payment of the forfeiture shall
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-129A1.html
      • apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that STi Telecom Inc. (formerly Epana Networks, Inc.) is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, STi Telecom Inc. (formerly Epana Networks, Inc.) is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-130A1.html
      • We have determined that Locus Telecommunications, Inc. apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Locus Telecommunications, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $5,000,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Locus Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-131A1.html
      • that Lyca Tel, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Lyca Tel, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Lyca Tel, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). . 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-132A1.html
      • that Touch-Tel USA, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Touch-Tel USA, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Touch-Tel USA, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-163A1.html
      • conclude that Travel Club Marketing, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $2,960,000 for its apparent violations of section 227(b)(1) of the Act and section 64.1200(a) of the Commission's rules. V. ordering clauses 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Travel Club Marketing Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,960,000 for willful and repeated violations of sections 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), and sections 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) and 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-178A1.html
      • that Simple Network, Inc. apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Simple Network, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). V. ORDERING CLAUSES 19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Simple Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-179A1.html
      • the outcome of this proceeding. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, the Application for Review filed by Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C., IS DENIED, and the Bureau's Memorandum Opinion and Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order on Review. On June 18, 2010, the government filed a complaint in federal district court against Saga Communications of New England, L.L.C. for enforcement of the $4,000 forfeiture, U.S. v. Saga Communications of New England, LLC, Civ. No. 10-12407 (E.D. MI). On July 15, 2010, the court
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-42A1.html
      • NANP invoices because the invoices were mailed to the wrong address and ADMA never received them. Third, ADMA argues that portions of the forfeiture are outside the applicable statute of limitations. Each of these arguments is addressed in detail below. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b)(1) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-48A1.html
      • we hereby impose a total forfeiture of $1,607,500 for Mexico Marketing's willful and repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Mexico Marketing, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $1,607,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200 (a)(3), and the related orders as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-49A1.html
      • $72,000 for Travelcomm's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, as set forth in the NALs. Thus, a total forfeiture of $72,000 is imposed. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Travelcomm Industries, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $72,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating sections 227(b)(1)(B) and 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 227(b)(1)(B), 227(b)(1)(C), and sections 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 64.1200(a)(2), 64.1200(a)(3), and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-58A1.html
      • facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 17 unsolicited advertisements to the 17 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $87,500. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Worldwide Industrial Enterprises, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $87,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-61A1.html
      • the Commission's rules by delivering 43 unsolicited, prerecorded advertising messages to the 33 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Security First of Alabama, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $342,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Security First of Alabama, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $342,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(B), and section 64.1200(a)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(2). 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-85A1.html
      • device to send 51 unsolicited advertisements to the 48 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $315,500. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $315,500 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-88A1.html
      • determined that Norristown Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Norristown Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $1,500,000. V. Ordering Clauses 25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Norristown Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,500,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-89A1.html
      • Main Street Telephone Company apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Main Street Telephone Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,200,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Main Street Telephone Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,200,000, for willful or repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-90A1.html
      • We have determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. I. ORDERING CLAUSES 27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Cheap2Dial Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-91A1.html
      • We have determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have further determined that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $3,000,000. V. Ordering Clauses 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that VoiceNet Telephone, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $3,000,000, for willful and repeated violations of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-95A1.html
      • other device to send 31 unsolicited advertisements to the 30 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $295,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 193, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Presidential Who's Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $295,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-1038A1.html
      • for inspection, we find the apparent violation willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on February 25, 2012, Mr. Ragan apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by failing to allow an inspection of his radio station and equipment. C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and the base forfeiture amount for failure to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-107A1.html
      • Pompano Beach. Furthermore, the Miami Office confirmed that Mr. Dorvilus registered the domain name for www.visionfm.org, and is doing business as "Radio VisionFM 927, Inc." Because Mr. Dorvilus operated this station consciously on more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were not only willful, but also repeated. 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-108A1.html
      • admitting that he allowed someone to place radio equipment in his space but denying participation in the "breaking of any law." Mr. Clarke also requested a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Clarke's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-109A1.html
      • station's main studio approximately eight months prior to the inspection. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Casarez apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to ensure the operational readiness of the Station KCRX(AM) EAS equipment. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-111A1.html
      • more than one day, we find that the apparent violations were both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Fleurinor apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-112A1.html
      • and on more than one day, the apparent violation was both willful and repeated. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Cheriza apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-115A1.html
      • was not willful, that it made a good faith effort to comply with the Rules, and that it paid a third-party radio company to program its radios to ensure no violations took place. III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Cerritos Ford's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-136A1.html
      • station had ever maintained these items in its public inspection file. Based on the evidence before us, we find that L&R apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-157A1.html
      • single public inspection file contained no issues/programs lists after 2001. Based on the evidence before us, we find that KM Radio apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain complete public inspection files for Stations KQMG and KQMG-FM. E. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for: (1) failure to maintain operational EAS equipment is $8,000; (2) failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000; (3) exceeding power limits is $4,000; and (4) violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-194A1.html
      • we find the apparent violations to be willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Richards TV apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install EAS equipment at its cable system in Jerusalem, Ohio. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to have EAS equipment installed or operational is $8,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) (2) (E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-197A1.html
      • on two occasions. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Taylor Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station's main studio during regular business hours. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount is $7,000 for violation of the main studio rule. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-198A1.html
      • did not contain any quarterly issues/programs lists. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Curran apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirements 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-211A1.html
      • considerations and the admission by the Companies that they failed to obtain prior Commission approval of the license transfers, we conclude that the Companies apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the express terms of the license, and therefore a forfeiture is warranted. B. Proposed Forfeiture 10. In determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(6) of the rules direct the Commission to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules prescribe a forfeiture of $8,000 for each separate unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-267A1.html
      • with the Enforcement Bureau on or before March 1 in EB Docket No. 06-36, for data pertaining to the previous calendar year. See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). See EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6928. See id. at 6953; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e). EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(6). See id. S: 1.16. See 47 U.S.C. S: 208. See 5 U.S.C. S: 504; 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart K. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-267 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-267A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-276A1.html
      • operate with full daytime power between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Based on the evidence before us, we find that JHT Ventures apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times other than those specified in its license. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized emissions is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-277A1.html
      • manually reduced power at night and forgot to do so on June 15, 2011. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Super W apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to change power/operating mode at night. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-279A1.html
      • before us, we find that Argos apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 15.1(b) of the Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on November 18, and December 8 and 21, 2011 from two different sites in Puerto Rico. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 12. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-281A1.html
      • FCC Form 854 to update the Antenna Structure's ownership. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Hacienda apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify the Commission of a change in ownership for the Antenna Structure. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-282A1.html
      • Doppler Weather Radar installation serving the Kansas City International Airport, the NAL proposed a $17,000 forfeiture against Insight for violation of Section 301 of the Act. Insight submitted documentation of its finances and requested reduction of the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Insight's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-338A1.html
      • asserting that "it was not [his] intention to act against the law," and that he believed his transmitter was able to be used legally without a license. Mr. Lebron also asserted that he cannot afford to pay the forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules (Rules), and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mr. Lebron's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-339A1.html
      • more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Darius apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-341A1.html
      • us, we find that Mr. Czura apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain a complete public inspection file and apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. D. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 13. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for AM tower fencing violations is $7,000; for EAS equipment not installed or operational is $8,000; and for violation of the public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-350A1.html
      • that the violation was also repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Hoosier apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to maintain and operate its broadcast station in accordance with the terms of its station authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-356A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-368A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $25,000 to Garcia. Garcia has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Gabriel A. Garcia IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-416A1.html
      • history of providing "high quality" service within its service area; and it further states that if we do not do so, the proposed forfeiture amount would only serve to benefit Pacific Spanish's competitors. III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Pacific Spanish's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-446A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Dorviuls. Mr. Dorvilus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Mercius Dorvilus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-450A1.html
      • requirements and thus were unauthorized. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that VPNet apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a U-NII transmitter with an unauthorized external high-gain antenna. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000 and the base forfeiture amount for operation of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-475A1.html
      • before us, we find that, on February 29, 2012, Mr. Young apparently willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request by a Commission agent to inspect the radio installation located inside his residence while the station was in operation. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing to allow inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-481A1.html
      • $500" based on its inability to pay. Vision Latina Broadcasting also submitted a certification that its main studio is now staffed consistent with the rules and that the station's public inspection file is complete and available to the public. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Vision Latina Broadcasting's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-488A1.html
      • NAL. In its Response, South Bay does not dispute the facts presented in the NAL, but asks that the proposed forfeiture be reduced based on South Bay's inability to pay the forfeiture amount. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining South Bay's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-522A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Cheriza. Mr. Cheriza has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robens Cheriza IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-524A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Thermitus. Mr. Thermitus has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Robenson Thermitus IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-527A1.html
      • Office's conclusion that it operated Station WEXC's STL on an unauthorized frequency. In addition, Beacon requests a cancellation or reduction on the ground that payment of a forfeiture would pose a financial hardship. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Beacon's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-533A1.html
      • April 2010. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Telava apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 303(q) of the Act and section 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit required red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure after sunset. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and/or marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-535A1.html
      • "as soon as practicable," Telava has failed to comply with that requirement. Accordingly, we find that Telava willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with Section 17.56(a) of the Rules by failing to repair the Antenna Structure's light outage as soon as practicable. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 12. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, (Forfeiture Policy Statement), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting is $10,000 and failing to conduct required monitoring is $2,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-536A1.html
      • December 20, 2010. In its Response, Dollar requests that we reduce the proposed forfeiture because the violation was "an unintentional mistake," which Dollar readily admitted, and because Dollar cooperated fully in the investigation. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Dollar's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-53A1.html
      • for certain kinds of violations, and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E) factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for "[e]gregious misconduct," or whether the subject of an enforcement action has engaged in an "[i]ntentional violation" or "[r]epeated or continuous violation." 7. Pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. Using our discretion to adjust the base forfeiture as circumstances warrant, however, we have imposed penalties that are many times higher for failing to respond properly to LOIs. For example, we have imposed substantial forfeitures for completely
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-546A1.html
      • observed Station WOIR operate its station with daytime power of 5000 watts after sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that ERJ Media apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within authorized power limitations. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-54A1.html
      • Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Classic Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. A. Proposed Forfeiture 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-55A1.html
      • Antenna Structure was not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that James Cable apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean and repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. A. Proposed Forfeiture 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-562A1.html
      • a total forfeiture of $9,000 for Response Card Marketing's willful or repeated violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders, for the reasons set forth in the NAL. III. ordering clauses 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), and under authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Response Card Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $9,000 for willfully or repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-56A1.html
      • not clearly visible for more than one day. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mobile Phone of Texas, Inc. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 17.50 of the Rules by failing to clean or repaint the Antenna Structure in order to maintain good visibility. A. Proposed Forfeiture 5. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed painting of the tower marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-570A1.html
      • 301 of the Act. IV. ordering clauses 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Alexander Kissi IS DENIED. 9. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Alexander Kissi IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-57A1.html
      • the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Air Traffic Control frequency, the NAL proposed a $12,000 forfeiture against Power for violation of section 73.1660(a)(2) of the Rules. Power submitted a response to the NAL, requesting a reduction due to "financial hardship." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act, section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Power's response, section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-590A1.html
      • Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.106 of the Rules, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Princess K Fishing Corporation IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED. 12. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Princess K Fishing Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand, five hundred dollars ($5,500) for violations of section 80.89(a) of the Rules. 13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-592A1.html
      • a notice of apparen t liability for forfeiture for a cable television operators repeated signal leakage). 144 ADMA Telecom, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4152, 415354, para. 5 (2011) (ADMA Telecom); see also Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, para. 9; So. Cal. Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 438788, para. 5. 145 See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f). 146 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, p ara. 4 (2002) (SBC). 18 Federal Communications Commission A. DA 12-592 Failure to Respond to Commission Orders 42. It is well established that a Commission licensees failure to respond to an LO I from the Bureau violates a Commission order. 147 Such violations do not always
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-59A1.html
      • and sales manager both admitted to the agents that Nassau Broadcasting has never maintained a public inspection file for Station WPLY at its main studio. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude that Nassau Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 73.3526 of the Rules. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, and section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating the station in direct contravention of the terms of its station authorization is $4,000, and the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-608A1.html
      • for maintaining public file material from the period of time prior to the Station's current ownership, and because the amount of the proposed forfeiture improperly exceeds the forfeiture amounts imposed in similar circumstances." III. DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Mapleton's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-60A1.html
      • operated the station on more than one day, we find the apparent violation was not only willful, but also repeated. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find that Mr. Thermitus apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-625A1.html
      • dates are barred by the statute of limitations; that it has a history of compliance; and that it is unable to pay the forfeiture. We discuss below each of these arguments in turn. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Ace's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-63A1.html
      • Commission for this device or any wireless handheld remote controllers. Based on the evidence before us, we find that US Jetting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(a)(1) and 15.201(b) of the Rules by marketing and selling unauthorized radio frequency devices. A. Proposed Forfeiture 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for the importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars ($7,000). In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-64A1.html
      • by the Licensee's selection, which undermines the complainant's charges of manipulation. Thus, we are persuaded that no rigging occurred in this instance. 9. Based upon the evidence before us, and in view of the applicable law and Commission precedent, we find that Clear Channel apparently willfully violated section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules specify a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for each violation of section 73.1216. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-65A1.html
      • rules constitutes a continuing violation. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 14. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides that any person that willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation by a common carrier, up to a statutory maximum for continuing violations of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-679A1.html
      • the Atlanta Office informed the FAA of the lighting outages on Towers 2 and 4, and NOTAMs for those structures were issued on February 10, 2012. 47 U.S.C. S: 303(q). 47 C.F.R. S: 17.51(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 17.47. 47 C.F.R. S: 17.48. 47 C.F.R. S: 17.50. 47 C.F.R. S: 17.57. See 47 U.S.C. S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is subject to further adjustment for inflation (see id. S: 1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. S: 510. See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501. See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. S:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-684A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Taylor Broadcasting. Taylor Broadcasting has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Taylor Broadcasting Company IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 73.1125 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-685A1.html
      • Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to R.J. R.J. has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, R.J.'s Late Night Entertainment Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b)(2), and 73.3527(b)(1) of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-702A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to KM Radio. KM Radio has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, KM Radio of Independence, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 11.35, 17.51, 73.1560(b), and 73.3526 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-750A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Upper Peninsula. Upper Peninsula has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Upper Peninsula Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $8,000 for violations of Section 11.35(a) of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-755A1.html
      • of antenna structure number 1214169. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Davis apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules by failing to notify immediately the Commission of a change in ownership information for the Antenna Structure. C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000 and failing to file required forms or information is 3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-769A1.html
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $8,000 to Casarez. Casarez has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Rosendo Casarez, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 11.35 of the Commission's rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-772A1.html
      • that had it done so, the Licensee would have ceased broadcasting such announcements and its violation would not have been so aggravated. The Licensee also asserts that the forfeiture is excessive in light of its good faith efforts. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-778A1.html
      • any Commission precedent suggesting that its actions in this case were excusable, and we find none. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Nassau apparently willfully violated Section 73.1206 of the Rules by recording the conversation described in the foregoing without first providing the required notice to the complainant. 9. Pursuant to the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, the base forfeiture for the unauthorized broadcast or recording of a telephone conversation is $4,000. The Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-789A1.html
      • inspection showed this operation was ongoing for several years. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mount Rushmore apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station KZMX-FM in accordance with the terms of the station's authorization. D. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 11. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violations of the main studio rule is $7,000, the base forfeiture for failing to make a station available for inspection is $7,000, and the base forfeiture amount for use of unauthorized equipment is $5,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-792A1.html
      • to changes in management. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Pacific Empire apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules by failing to maintain the Stations' issues/programs lists and make them available in the Stations' public inspection files. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violating of the public file rules is $10,000 for each radio station. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-800A1.html
      • of time. The agents also observed that there was no perimeter fence surrounding the property. Based on the evidence before us, we find that WOYK apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose the Antenna Structure within an effective locked fence. A. Proposed Forfeiture 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for an AM fencing violation is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-831A1.html
      • June 22, 2011, one of the previous owners, Cohanzick Broadcasting Corporation, was still listed as the owner on the antenna structure registration. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Quinn apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 17.57 of the Rules. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirements 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of the public file rule is $10,000 and for failing to file required forms or information is $3,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-83A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Cernogg. Mr. Cernogg has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Willis Cernogg, Jr. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violations of Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-846A1.html
      • the current license term. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526(e)(12) and 73.3526(c)(1) of the Rules by failing to maintain the issues/programs lists and make them available in the Station's public inspection file. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failure to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000 and the base forfeiture amount for violation of public inspection file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-872A1.html
      • in the transmitter's control unit had died, which resulted in the transmitter not shutting down at sunset. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Townsquare apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by operating at times not specified in its license. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding power limits is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-874A1.html
      • Broadcasting apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.47(a) and 17.51(a) of the Rules by failing to exhibit red obstruction lighting on the Antenna Structure from sunset until sunrise and to monitor the Antenna Structure's lights as required. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount and Reporting Requirement 7. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for failing to comply with prescribed lighting and marking is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-875A1.html
      • frequencies under its license for Station WQFC968 or under any other license. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Aramark apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 1.903(a) of the Rules by operating radio transmitting equipment on unauthorized frequencies. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 10. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating on an unauthorized frequency is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-876A1.html
      • was involved in the general conduct or management of the unauthorized station and did so on more than one day. Therefore, we find that Mr. Rivas apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-888A1.html
      • more than one day, the apparent violation of the Act was both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Knighten apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-889A1.html
      • it is now in compliance with Section 73.1350(a), stating that the "automation equipment used to transition WIPC from daytime to nighttime operations has been repaired and is functioning properly at the present time." III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Super W's response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-901A1.html
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $22,000 to Mr. Young. Mr. Young has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Arthur Lee Young IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $22,000 for violations of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-927A1.html
      • p.m. EST, which is the local sunset time during the month of October. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Birach apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Rules by failing to operate within the terms of the Station's authorization. A. Proposed Forfeiture and Reporting Requirement 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for exceeding the power limit is $4,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-931A1.html
      • information was intentional in violation of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by providing material factual information that was incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and not misleading. A. Proposed Forfeiture 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum. Therefore, for broadcasters such as Vision Latina, the base forfeiture is $37,500 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-933A1.html
      • Station KBPO during regular business hours and found the file did not contain any issues-programs listings. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Vision Latina Broadcasting apparently willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to make available a complete public inspection file. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 6. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for violation of public file rules is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-939A1.html
      • these facts indicate that Mr. Jean consciously operated and/or otherwise was involved in the general conduct or management of the unlicensed station. Therefore, we find that Mr. Jean apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Act by operating radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization. B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount 8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-940A1.html
      • without further expenditure of public resources. Nothing on the record in this case, including A Radio's ability to pay claim, warrants any leniency or mitigation of the proposed forfeiture amount. 5. We have examined the NAL Response pursuant to the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Act, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules. Considering the entire record and the statutory factors listed above, we find that A Radio is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.204, 0.311, 0.314, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DOC-314802A1.html
      • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On June 14, 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 12-62, in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects a typographical error in paragraph 34 to make it consistent with paragraphs 1, 12, and 32, and read as follows: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,120 and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,121 Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, four hundred sixty-five dollars ($1,758,465) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. __________________________ 120 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). 121 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Pamela S. Kane Deputy
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-16A1.html
      • that the person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission rule. 11. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for sponsorship identification violations. In addition, the Commission's rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, which include "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Based upon our review of the record in this case and the statutory factors identified above, we find that Radio License
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-23A1.html
      • A. We further find that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $432,000 for apparent violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Teresa Goldberg d/b/a Software Training Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $432,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, and Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-24A1.html
      • device to send 97 unsolicited advertisements to the 79 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that National Employee Benefits Group is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $603,000. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that National Employee Benefits Group is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $603,000 for willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-2A1.html
      • We therefore impose a total forfeiture of $64,000 for Five Star's willful and repeated violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, as set forth in the NAL. III. ordering clauses 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(4), that Five Star Advertising Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE to the United States Government in the sum of $64,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating section 227(b)(1)(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(c), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3). 11. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-38A1.html
      • higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible revocation of Starfone's operating authority, including disqualification of Starfone's principals from the provision of any interstate or international common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 29. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that RB Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $408,668 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release date of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-39A1.html
      • single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." 12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base amount in no way suggests, however, that a forfeiture should not be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-3A1.html
      • missing a total of fifteen issues/programs lists. Lazer subsequently sought Commission review of the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. III. DISCUSSION 7. In this Order on Review, we deny Lazer's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. Pursuant to Section 503(b)(5)(E) of the Act, the Bureau took into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Lazer has failed to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-62A1.html
      • Telseven's principals, including Mr. Hines, from providing any interstate common carrier service without the prior consent of the Commission, and/or revocation of Telseven's and Mr. Hines's authority to operate any business that is subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under the Act. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 34. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Telseven, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of of one million, seven hundred forty-five thousand, three hundred ninety-four dollars ($1,745,394) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/21c.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/21c.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/21c.txt
      • and British Fax Directory a.k.a. British Fax Service, Gun Court, 70 Wrapping Lane, London England E1 9RL. The Telecommunications Consumers Division has been advised that the information service provider for the remaining nine 900 numbers is British Fax Service, Gun Court, 70 Wrapping Lane, London England E1 9RL. 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The Telecommunications Consumers Division has obtained information that Mr. Goodman is the subscriber for 646-602-0372, an opt-out number that appears on numerous advertisements. The Telecommunications Consumers Division has obtained information that ICN Corporation is the subscriber for 1-800-606-5720, an opt-out number that appears on numerous advertisements. The Telecommunications Consumers Division has been further advised that ICN is listed as the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000238.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000238.txt
      • the World Wide Web) can be considered in determining whether adequate disclosure has been made, the non-br oadcast disclosures must be "[i]n addition to the required broadcast announcements. . . ." Id. Thus, whil e non-broadcast disclosures can supplement broadcast announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadca st announcements. 10. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Comm ission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the prov isions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For pu rposes of Section 503(b), the term "willful" means that the violator knew it was taking the action in questio n, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000245.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000245.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da000245.txt
      • No. 915PA0010 Brick, New Jersey ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2000 Released: February 10, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order rescinds a forfeiture against Bruce Alesso in the amount of $2,000 that was issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80. The forfeiture was assessed for willful violation of Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301, based on unlicensed radio transmissions made via a marine radio station which Mr. Alesso had in his home. BACKGROUND 2. In response to a complaint from the U.S. Coast Guard that an unidentified
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001010.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001010.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001010.txt
      • inform any party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation. In this case, WLI clearly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by calling Ms. Macareno's daughter and broadcasting the conversation without giving her prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001011.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001011.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001011.txt
      • $2,000 as the base amount for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. In this case, we believe that a forfeiture of $1,000 is appropriate due to the prior unblemished enforcement record of the licensee. IV. Ordering Clauses 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Southern Rhode Island Public Radio Broadcasting, Inc., licensee, noncommercial educational Station WBLQ(FM), Westerly, Rhode Island, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. Section 399b and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001016.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001016.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001016.txt
      • question was 1,000,000 Turkish lira. The Commission has held that licensees are ``responsible for broadcasting accurate statements as to the nature and value of contest prizes, and will be held accountable for any announcement which tends to mislead the public.'' WMJX, Inc., 48 RR 2d 1339, 1357 (1981). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001095.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001095.txt
      • appropriate tool to punish its prior violations and to ensure future compliance with our rules. We believe a $4,000 forfeiture will act as an appropriate punishment and deterrent without unduly disrupting WS's ability to serve the public. Ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, WS Communications, L.L.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful and repeated violations of Section 73.3526 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001096.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001096.txt
      • [agency's] discretion.'' Id., 88 F.3d at 747, citing NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974). Infinity has wholly failed to show that there has been any abuse of that discretion in this case. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Washington, D.C. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for its willful violation of Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1206. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001182.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001182.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001182.txt
      • the Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish a base amount of $11,000 for violations of this nature. The correct base forfeiture amount for operation of a radio station without a valid Commission license or authorization is $10,000. We therefore reduce the forfeiture amount to $10,000. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jean R. Jonassaint, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001197.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001197.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001197.txt
      • reduction of the forfeiture amount as a ``small business'' subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (``SBREFA''). III. DISCUSSION 7. Callcomm initially responds to the NAL by stating that because it ``is not the licensee of the transmitter located on Eldorado Mountain,'' the Field Office should have followed the dictates of Section 503(b)(5) of the Act and Section 1.80(d) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), for non-Commission licensees, prior to issuing the NAL. Specifically, Callcomm states that the Field Office should have given it a citation of the violation charged, a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview at the Field Office closest to Callcomm, and an opportunity to cure the violation before it issued the NAL. However, Callcomm overlooks the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001234.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001234.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001234.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to La Favorita in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for the noted violation. La Favorita has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, La Favorita, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful violation of Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001235.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001235.txt
      • On July 26, 1999, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a $2,000 monetary forfeiture. Redondo Beach has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, the City of Redondo Beach, California IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $2,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act, former Section 90.113 of the Rules, and current Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001294.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001294.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001294.txt
      • indecency standard.'' 15 FCC Rcd at 2518-19, citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 868-70. Thus, we find no merit to Infinity's argument that Reno v. ACLU invalidates the ``foundation of the NAL'' assessed against it. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Los Angeles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001335.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001335.txt
      • October 20, 1999 Order for File No. 820EF0021 IS GRANTED. In consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violations, as well as PNI's history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, we reduce the amount of the forfeiture to $25,000. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center, at (202) 418-1995,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001428.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001428.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001428.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Leonard D. Martin, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $17,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Sections 301 and 303(n) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001435.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001435.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001435.txt
      • no reason to await issuance of the guidelines before imposing the forfeiture order in this case. In the absence of any substantive response to our NAL, we impose a forfeiture for the full amount originally proposed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Citicasters Co. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for willfully violating 18 U.S.C. � 1464. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001454.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001454.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001454.txt
      • issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Reier for the noted violation. Reier has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Reier Broadcasting Company, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for failing to enclose its AM antenna tower within an effective locked fence in violation of Section 73.49 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001494.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001494.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001494.txt
      • Petition for Reconsideration raises several issues regarding the investigation, alleges that the record contains factual discrepancies, and contends that facts that were not disclosed in the underlying NAL were used as support in the Forfeiture Order. 5. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that remission of the $7,000 forfeiture is warranted. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, the $7,000 forfeiture issued to John A. Acconey IS RESCINDED, and that pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Mr. Acconey's Petition for Reconsideration IS GRANTED to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001495.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001495.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001495.txt
      • Rules, and that the $8,000 forfeiture amounts to an undue financial burden for it in light of the $7,100 budgeted annually for KCOZ's operation. 3. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, in particular the financial hardship that would result from an $8,000 forfeiture, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we conclude that rescission of the $8,000 forfeiture is warranted. We note, however, that the actions at issue in this case constitute a violation of Section 11.35 of the Rules. We will, therefore, retain a record of this violation, and the violation will be considered in determining an equitable penalty in the event any future violations occur.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001499.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001499.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001499.txt
      • In assessing the forfeiture amount for the tower fencing violation, the NAL noted the inspecting FCC agent's conclusion that Culpeper was aware of the deficiencies in the fence prior to the inspection, making this violation willful. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations, the Columbia Field Office noted that The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines listed a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for the fencing violation and $4,000 for the excessive power violation. After considering Culpeper's history of compliance with respect to its operation of WCVA, the Columbia Field Office reduced the forfeiture amount for the excessive power violation to $2,000. No corresponding reduction was deemed to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001523.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001523.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001523.txt
      • Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) to Morradio, Inc. for the referenced violations. Morradio has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Morradio, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1690(b), and 73.3538(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001524.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001524.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001524.txt
      • further discussion. However, as explained below, we conclude that Ms. Gizzo has justified a reduction of the base forfeiture amount in light of her inability to pay. Ms. Gizzo argues that, under SBREFA, she is entitled to reduction of the forfeiture amount as a small business. The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidelines for upward and downward adjustment of forfeitures. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied, 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Under these guidelines, we consider a licensee's ability to pay as a relevant factor in assessing forfeitures. Our review of Ms. Gizzo's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001551.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001551.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001551.txt
      • to the Commission or to a charitable organization of his choice, as determined most appropriate by the Commission; and permit an authorized Commission agent to inspect his residence to ensure all equipment has been removed. III. DISCUSSION 12. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Martin's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001567.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001567.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001567.txt
      • in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on or about January 12, 1999, Station KRXK(AM), violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001574.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001574.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001574.txt
      • Broadcasting, based on the information submitted we would find no reason to reduce its forfeiture amount. 10. Turning to ARS Broadcasting's claim that it might qualify as a small business, we will assume, for this discussion only, that it qualifies as a small business. The Commission, following Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and through its Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. Using this guidance, we do not find that ARS Broadcasting is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture amount. 11. After examining ARS Broadcasting's response to the NAL under Section 503(b)(2)(D)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001575.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001575.txt
      • demonstrate licensee's ``good faith'' effort to comply with Commission rules and justify mitigation). In sum, we believe that the nature of the apparent violations require the imposition of the respective base monetary forfeiture amounts. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Kevin Hackler is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for violating the provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring licensees to obtain Commission authorization prior to transferring substantial station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001579.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001579.txt
      • cases, demonstrate licensee's ``good faith'' effort to comply with Commission rules and justify mitigation). In sum, we believe that the nature of the apparent violation requires the imposition of the base monetary forfeiture amounts. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Kenneth Paul Harris, Sr. is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for violating the provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules requiring persons to obtain Commission authorization prior to assuming substantial station control, pursuant to Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001637.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001637.txt
      • has not demonstrated that its conduct warrants a reduction of its proposed forfeiture. Quite the opposite, WBC's intentional misconduct justifies use of the upward adjustment criteria cited in the NAL. The proposed forfeiture is fully justified and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for violating the terms and conditions of its license and the Commission's rules requiring operation within the parameters set forth in the license, and requiring express permission prior to a permittee's operation or commencement of program tests involving directional
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001640.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001640.txt
      • broadcasts the resulting conversation without giving prior notice, Citicasters' actions appear to be directly contrary to the language of the rule, which requires prior notice before a conversation is broadcast. We also find that Citicasters' conduct is inconsistent with the rule's purpose of protecting parties to telephone conversations. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001667.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001667.txt
      • authorizations for Stations KNKG512 and KWB377 expired on April 1, 1999. Advanced TelCom did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 11, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $3,000 to Advanced TelCom for the late filing of its license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Advanced TelCom's response to the NAL. In the response, Advanced TelCom asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because Advanced TelCom is a very small business whose revenues are
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001695.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001695.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001695.txt
      • of its 1997, 1998 and 1999 federal income tax returns. The tax returns indicate that Booth's gross revenues were $35,049 in 1997, $44,935 in 1998 and $56,521 in 1999. III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Booth's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001745.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001745.txt
      • could not be reasonably viewed as applying to the second stock sale. Accordingly, we do not view the parties' actions in connection with the second stock sale (from Mr. Collins to Mr. Rodgers) as the type of reasonable reliance on staff advice that would make a forfeiture inappropriate. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001746.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001746.txt
      • If NATN continues to violate the Commission's universal service rules, such violations could result in future notices of apparent liability proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke NATN's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, North American Telephone Network is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this NOTICE
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.txt
      • of those facts and arguments and reduced the proposed forfeiture from $11,000 to $2,000. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, William L. Leavell's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001810.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001810.txt
      • for Stations KNKL513, KNKD291 and KNKD302 expired on April 1, 1999. Mr. Sanders did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until July 14, 1999. On October 1, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $6,000 to Mr. Sanders for the late filing of his license renewal applications. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received Mr. Sanders' response to the NAL. In the response, Mr. Sanders asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because payment of the proposed forfeiture would impose a severe financial
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001873.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001873.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001873.txt
      • it requested reduction of the proposed monetary forfeiture to $1,000. On March 3, 2000, the Bureau released the Forfeiture Order, which assessed a monetary forfeiture of $5,000 for willful violation of Section 73.1213(b). DISCUSSION 4. The Bureau issued the Forfeiture Order pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001914.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001914.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001914.txt
      • response on February 22, 2000. 3. In its response to the NAL, PCS Communications raises several issues regarding the Field Office's investigation of Coupe's complaints and alleges that the record is neither accurate nor complete. 4. After reviewing the particular circumstances in this case, and per the discretion authorized by Section 504(b) of the Act, and as provided by Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, we conclude that cancellation of the NAL is warranted. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the NAL issued to PCS Communications, Inc. IS CANCELLED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall by sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001951.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001951.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001951.txt
      • (February 26, 1999), we believe that Three Eagles can only receive limited credit for its prior record of compliance. Based upon our consideration of the record as a whole, we believe a $6,000 forfeiture is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Three Eagles of Columbus, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001957.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001957.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001957.txt
      • expand their stations' original 22 dB( V/m interference contours. We find, therefore, that Chadmoore's and PTT Maple's operation from the Clark Tower site was permitted under Section 90.693(b) of the Rules. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504 of the Act and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the proposed forfeitures is warranted. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued against Chadmoore and PTT Maple ARE RESCINDED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001971.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001971.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001971.txt
      • in a forfeiture. Nonetheless, because Diamond apparently believed that American Tower was responsible for responding, and taking into account all the factors required under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we find that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced to $500. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Diamond Services Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $500 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Commission's Rules, which requires the recipient of a Notice of Violation to respond in writing within a specific time period. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001994.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001994.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001994.txt
      • basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. Mr. LaPierre has not provided the necessary proof to evaluate his claim. Indeed, he has provided no information at all regarding his inability to pay. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Richard E. LaPierre IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violating Section 1.89(b) of the Rules. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002004.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002004.txt
      • Telnet's authorization for Station WSI674 expired on April 1, 1999. Telnet did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until July 2, 1999. On September 10, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $2,000 to Telnet for the late filing of its license renewal application. 5. On November 23, 1999, Telnet filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount based on its financial condition. Though Telnet states that it cannot pay the forfeiture amount,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002005.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002005.txt
      • Therefore, denial of Joy's petition is warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002041.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002041.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002041.txt
      • in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired at around 7:30 p.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on August 28, 1999, Station KWGL(FM), violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002055.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002055.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002055.txt
      • arrangements to paint the tower eventually engaged a second company. By letter dated July 19, 2000, Kona Koast notified the Commission that the tower had been painted and was in compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires that, in examining Kona Koast's response, the Commission take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002090.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002090.txt
      • Section 302 of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules simply prohibits the offering for sale of the linear amplifiers. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, The Two Way Shop's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. 5. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002130.txt
      • for Stations KCA237, KNKC731, and KNKC816 expired on April 1, 1999. Berkshire did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until June 24, 1999. On September 9, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $4,500 to Berkshire for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On November 29, 1999, Berkshire filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation of the forfeiture. Berkshire asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because, although the Commission stated that it would send renewal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002145.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002145.txt
      • pay the forfeiture. Preliminarily, Vincent Communications limits its documentation to the revenue generated by paging stations KNKK227, KNKK231, and KNKK233. Thus, we have no information about the financial condition of Vincent Communications as a corporate entity. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Vincent Communications, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,500 for violating Section 1.949 of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002164.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002164.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002164.txt
      • the rule by denying Mr. Huffman access to the public file and by asking him why he wanted access to the file. Furthermore, Riverside also violated Section 73.3526 by failing to place certain materials in the public inspection file, including certain issues/programs lists and EEO Model Program Reports. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002185.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002185.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002185.txt
      • that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on August 25, 1999, at approximately 1:15 p.m., Station KSJO(FM) violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002186.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002186.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002186.txt
      • Rcd 3695 (MMB 1990). Because the material aired at around 8:15 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on February 9, 2000, Station KSJO(FM) violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002201.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002201.txt
      • that the Commission ``take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.'' 6. We have reviewed the calculation of the forfeiture amount. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement'') sets a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. 7. Taking into account all of the factors set forth in the Policy Statement and Section 503(b) of the Act, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002285.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002285.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002285.txt
      • fully considered and rejected in the Forfeiture Order. Thus, we find no basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules, KNFL, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002287.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002287.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002287.txt
      • of sex with people knowledgeable in the field. See also King Broadcasting Co. (KING-TV), 5 FCC Rcd 2971 (1990) (broadcast of high school sex education class not indecent because material was clinical or instructional). In contrast, the material in this case cannot be said to be clinical or instructional. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002288.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002288.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002288.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to Oregon Pacific. Oregon Pacific has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Oregon Pacific Railroad Company, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willful and repeated violation of the provisions of Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002289.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002289.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to La Favorita. La Favorita has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the assessment of a monetary forfeiture in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, La Favorita, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willful violation of the provisions of Sections 1.89 and 17.4 of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002294.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002294.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002294.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D),
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002313.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002313.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002313.txt
      • on the sale, the forfeiture will no longer have an impact upon station operations. After reviewing all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we believe a $7,000 forfeiture is appropriate in this case. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Communicast Consultants, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000), for its willful violation of 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3999. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002314.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002314.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002314.txt
      • station received the consideration of a ``firm'' concert in return for playing ``On A Day Like Today,'' and since the station did not air sponsorship identification announcements when it played the song, the station apparently violated Section 317 of the Act and Section 73.1212 of the Commission's rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002315.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002315.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002315.txt
      • appears that the playing of ``On A Day Like Today'' was linked to the consideration the station received from A&M. Since the station did not air sponsorship identification announcements when it played the record, it apparently violated Section 317 of the Act and Section 73.1212 of our rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002319.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002319.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002319.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to American for the noted violation. American has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, American Radio Brokers, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for failing to respond to written Commission inquiries in violation of Section 1.89 of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002334.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002334.txt
      • 3. The authorization for Station KNKO605 expired on April 1, 1999. Mills did not file an application for renewal of the authorization until June 28, 1999. On September 20, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal application. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $1,500 to Mills for the late filing of its license renewal application. 4. On November 18, 1999, Mills filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount because Mills provides a ``valuable service'' that ``is needed in the community,'' and ``fulfills the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002335.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002335.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002335.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Econopage is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002358.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002358.txt
      • and Bear Valley has the exclusive right to set personnel policies for the station. Mr. Foster appears to have no current role in the station's operation because he is incarcerated. Under these circumstances, Bear Valley appears to have acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002359.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002359.txt
      • and Bear Valley has the exclusive right to set personnel policies for the station. Mr. Foster appears to have no current role in the station's operation because he is incarcerated. Under these circumstances, Bear Valley appears to have acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002376.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002376.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002376.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, US Unwired is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002393.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002393.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002393.txt
      • Mundo never told Mr. Vazquez-Santos that it intended to record and broadcast the conversation on May 8, 2000 and that it recorded and broadcast this conversation over four stations and on two different occasions. We thus conclude that El Mundo apparently violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002478.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002478.txt
      • authorizations for Stations WRV927 and WXR916 expired on April 1, 1999. Page-A-Phone did not file applications for renewal of the authorizations until May 19, 1999. On September 21, 1999, the Wireless Bureau granted the late-filed renewal applications. 4. On November 5, 1999, the Wireless Bureau, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, issued an NAL in the amount of $2,000 to Page-A-Phone for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On November 24, 1999, Page-A-Phone filed a response with the Commission in which it requests cancellation of the forfeiture. Page-A-Phone asserts that the forfeiture should be cancelled because it tried without success, on at least two occasions,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002486.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002486.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002486.txt
      • it to monitor the site's lighting system constantly through automatic alarms. Finally, Crown argues that the forfeiture should be reduced based on its ``unblemished'' record as a tower owner and licensee. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Crown's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002523.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002523.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002523.txt
      • person operated the station located at his residence; but he has not done so. During the transmissions observed on February 27, 1999, the operator of the station located at Mr. Martin's residence responded to the name ``Leonard.'' (c) As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Mr. Martin's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002665.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002665.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002665.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Ford is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002666.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002666.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002666.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Page-Comm is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002667.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002667.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002667.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules Ohio Bell is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002668.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002668.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002668.txt
      • have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking these facts into consideration and all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $5,000 is warranted. IV. Ordering Clauses 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Star Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.3 of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002708.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002708.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002708.txt
      • inform any party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation. In this case, Clear Channel clearly violated Section 73.1206 of the Commission's rules by calling Mr. Schwartz and broadcasting the conversation without giving him prior notice of its intent to broadcast such conversation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each provide that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, without regard
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002724.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002724.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002724.txt
      • willful). Moreover, we reject CBS' argument regarding the popularity of the artists. Neither the statute nor our case law confers upon a broadcaster the right to air indecent language simply because the speaker happens to be popular. See The Rusk Corporation (KLOL(FM)), 8 FCC Rcd 3228, 3229 (1993). 9. Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew that it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002736.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002736.txt
      • exceeded the commercial limits established in Section 73.670 during the relatively short period covered by the Bureau investigation. Under these circumstances, we believe a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000 is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that TELEMUNDO OF PUERTO RICO LICENSE CORP. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.670 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002755.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002755.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002755.txt
      • wireless operations, which typically have been subject to forfeitures of approximately $10,000. Taking into consideration all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that a forfeiture of $6,000 is warranted. Ordering Clauses 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Commercial Radio is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,000 for violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.903(a) of the Commission's Rules. The amount specified was determined after consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002810.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002810.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002810.txt
      • has submitted financial data for 1997 through 1999, and has requested that we keep its financial information confidential. After reviewing the financial data submitted, we find no evidence in Skywave's response that would support a reduction of the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Skywave Electronics, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $7,000 for violating the provisions of Section 302 of the Act and Section 2.907 of the Rules, which require radio frequency devices to be properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the Commission's Rules prior to their sale, offer for sale, shipment, or distribution
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002811.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002811.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002811.txt
      • the Commission stated in the MO&O that applications for renewal received more than 30 days after the expiration of the license may lead to ``more significant fines or forfeitures.'' In this case, Checkpoint operated without a valid license for over nine months after the license expired. 5. The guidelines contained in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires the Commission to consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002837.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002837.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002837.txt
      • expected to know and comply with the Commission's Rules, and will not be excused for violations thereof, absent clear mitigating circumstances. GNOTS Reserve has not presented any mitigating circumstances that would warrant reducing or eliminating the forfeiture. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, GNOTS Reserve, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,000 for violating Section 80.373(f) of the Rules. 8. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002840.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002840.txt
      • misconduct by Fisher. In addition, we have taken into account the sanctions handed down against other similarly situated licensees. On balance, we believe a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, that FISHER BROADCASTING, INC. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.670 of the Commission's rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002844.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002844.txt
      • Mr. Foster had ceded control of the station to Bear Valley. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that, upon his incarceration, Mr. Foster ceased having any role whatsoever. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Bear Valley acquired ultimate control over station operations without prior Commission approval. 11. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002858.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002858.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002858.txt
      • note that our imposition of a proposed forfeiture in this proceeding is independent of SBC's obligation to make voluntary payments for failure to perform according to the benchmarks and other parity guidelines set forth in Appendix C of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, SBC Communications is HEREBY NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of eighty eight thousand dollars ($88,000.00) for willfully or repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002915.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002915.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002915.txt
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us. Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Stephen Fowler d/b/a Exports R Us, IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $7,000, for willful violations of Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00475.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00475.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00475.txt
      • 33617 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: March 2, 2000 Released: March 3, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against Leslie D. Brewer, d/b/a/ L.D. Brewer's 2-way Radio (collectively, ``Mr. Brewer''), in the amount of $10,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violation of Sections 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 2.803(a)(1), and 15.201(b). These violations are based on the marketing of a transmitter not authorized by the Commission. The transmitter at issue was sold to an undercover agent of the Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office. BACKGROUND
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00476.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00476.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00476.txt
      • provided copies of its 1996 and 1997 federal income tax returns with its August, 1999, response and provided a copy of its 1998 federal income tax returns with a supplemental response received September 28, 1999. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Natchez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00485.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00485.txt
      • Mr. James Farlow has raised in response to both the underlying Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") and the Forfeiture Order. The NAL proposed and the Forfeiture Order affirmed imposition of a forfeiture against Mr. Farlow in the amount of $7,000, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C. ( 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, ("the Rules"), 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80, for willful violation of Section 303(n) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 303(n), and Section 95.426 of the Rules (CB Rule 26), 47 C.F.R. ( 95.426. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the $7,000 forfeiture amount. 2. The Bureau's Norfolk, Virginia, office received a complaint that Mr. Farlow's citizen's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00511.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00511.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00511.txt
      • and Ordering Clauses 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that WTTW's request for reduction or rescission filed January 2, 1998 IS GRANTED to the extent that we approve a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $5,000 to $2,000. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Window to the World Communications, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational television station WTTW (TV), Chicago, Illinois, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000), for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 399b, and Section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules. 6.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00516.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00516.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00516.txt
      • to Bernard A. Solnik, Esq., Case No. 02120518 (MMB March 25, 1996). None of these rulings contain any analysis or discussion of the digital delay system. Moreover, none of the language in those rulings is inconsistent with the plain language of the rule, which clearly requires prior notification. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00521.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00521.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00521.txt
      • or broadcast at the beginning of a telephone call, if the conversation is already being taped or broadcast. Rather, ``notice of intent to broadcast a conversation [must] actually precede the recording or transmission of the telephone call.'' Id., see also KIDS-TV 6, 14 FCC Rcd 13351 (MMB 1999). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00526.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00526.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00526.txt
      • revisiting issues previously addressed, or for reducing or rescinding the forfeiture amount. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, Joy Public Broadcasting Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order for NAL No. 915TP0004 IS DENIED. 7. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00535.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00535.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00535.txt
      • is establishing a procedure to ensure that certificate violations will not occur in the future; and it is rare for Sealand, which operates almost 40 U.S. flag vessels, to miss the renewal of a Safety Certificate. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 364(a) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), requires that the Commission, in examining Sealand's response, take into account the nature,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00561.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00561.txt
      • account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Those factors include the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. See also Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules. After considering all of the circumstances, we believe the ends of justice will be served by imposing the forfeiture for the main studio rule violation but canceling the forfeiture for the public file rule violation. 6. With respect to the main studio violation, we note that we recently imposed a forfeiture of $7,000 for willful and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00569.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00569.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00569.txt
      • not believe that KXLE has presented sufficient reasons to justify reducing the forfeiture amount. Even if the AM equipment had been dismantled for repair on the day of inspection, as KXLE claims, we believe an $8,000 forfeiture amount for the inoperable EAS equipment for the FM station alone is appropriate. See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, released December 28, 1999 (base amount of $8,000 for EAS violation). Further, KXLE claims that its lack of knowledge of required EAS testing for the FM station warrants reducing the forfeiture amount. Commission licensees are responsible for knowing and adhering to the statutes
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00571.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00571.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00571.txt
      • submission is not supported in this manner and, therefore, provides no reliable basis for Hoosier's claim of inability to pay. In any event, the material that Hoosier did submit indicates gross revenues of approximately $52,000 for 1998. A $4,000 forfeiture under these circumstances is not excessive. 8. The forfeiture standards in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines sets $5,000 as the base forfeiture amount for a willful violation of Section 73.1350(a). The Field Office and the Bureau reviewed the record, which included Hoosier's operating history and claims of vandalism, and concluded that a $4,000 forfeiture was indicated instead of the $5,000 base forfeiture amount. We affirm that conclusion. IV.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00572.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00572.txt
      • on April 7, 1999. On April 23, 1999, the Commission's staff returned those applications to Pampa as defective. Pampa refiled the applications on May 28, 1999, and the Commission's staff granted them on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) to Pampa for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Pampa's response to the NAL. In that response, Pampa asserted, among other arguments, that it requested application forms from the Commission on March 24, 1999, but
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00578.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00578.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00578.txt
      • Finally, Western contends that the proposed monetary forfeiture is ``excessive'' and provides copies of Western's 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal income tax returns as well as ``cash flow statements'' from March, April, May, and June 1999. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Western's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00579.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00579.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00579.txt
      • intent, the cited violations were willful. The Bureau also noted that while remedial action to correct a violation is commendable, it will not nullify a forfeiture penalty, and, further, that Northwest had not provided any documentary evidence to evaluate its ability to pay the forfeiture. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407 (Released December 28, 1999) ("Policy Statement"). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00590.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00590.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00590.txt
      • a forfeiture only for the period from December 11, 1997 until October 30, 1998 because WS' application for renewal of license was granted on December 11, 1997, and a forfeiture for violations prior to that time is barred by the statute of limitations. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(A). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00619.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00619.txt
      • Rather, the application or request for program test authority or STA must be granted or WBC must terminate all unauthorized operation of Station WRHC. Otherwise, WBC risks loss of the license for Station WRHC as well as additional forfeiture penalties. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, WRHC Broadcasting Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500) for violating the terms and conditions of its license and the Commission's rules requiring operation within the parameters set forth in the license, and requiring express permission prior to a permittee's operation or
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00622.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00622.txt
      • EchoStar was required to carry 13 channels of noncommercial programming of an educational or informational nature on December 15, 1999. It was carrying only four such channels on that date. EchoStar's conduct is an apparent violation of Section 335 of the Act and Section 100.5 of our rules. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00635.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00635.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00635.txt
      • NALs that were issued and mailed to them prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, CSBDA and Westall cannot now claim that the NALs fail because they were not issued within the timeframe established by 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(B). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Colorado Small Business Development Association, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $10,000, and Westall Communications, d/b/a M.T.W. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $12,000, for violating the provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's Rules requiring that radio transmitters be operated in accordance with a proper authorization granted
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00636.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00636.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00636.txt
      • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars (20,000). Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00637.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00637.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00637.txt
      • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Mar-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,2 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,3 Mar-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, 17.50 and 17.56(a) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00638.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00638.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $14,000. Willis Broadcasting has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Willis Broadcasting IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $14,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 73.1213(b) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00639.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00639.txt
      • Telecommunications Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000). Simon Property has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80, Simon Property IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, former Section 90.113 of the Commission's Rules and Section 1.903 of the Commission's Rules. 4. Payment of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00696.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00696.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00696.txt
      • addition, Sunjet asserted that the proposed $7,000 forfeiture is excessive in comparison with its gross revenues of less than $80,000. However, Sunjet did not provide any tax returns or financial statements to support this claim. III. DISCUSSION 11. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Sunjet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00709.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00709.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00709.txt
      • Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000. Willis Broadcasting Corporation has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80, Willis Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $12,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 11.35(a) and 1.89(b) of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty (30) days
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00765.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00765.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00765.txt
      • amplifiers; and that Two Way collects sales taxes and charges $38.50 for installation and tuning. In addition, Two Way states, if its response does not close this matter, it is making a ``motion for Discovery.'' III. DISCUSSION 5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (Released Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Two Way's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00766.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00766.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00766.txt
      • website, offered tee-shirts for sale, and detailed his work experience under the name ``DJ New York.'' During a telephone conversation with Commission staff, James N. Dispoto stated that his full-time occupation is operating his internet radio station, which, according to him, just breaks even. III. DISCUSSION 10. The forfeiture was issued pursuant to Section 503 of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules. In assessing the forfeiture amount, the Bureau followed the forfeiture standards established in Section 503 of the Act and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00848.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00848.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00848.txt
      • support that claim. The financial statements, which are marked ``unaudited'' and do not contain a certification of their correctness, indicate that KNFL's gross revenues were $56,387 in 1996, $80,888 in 1997 and $119,654 in 1998. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KNFL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00883.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00883.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00883.txt
      • supplement broadcast announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadcast announcements. The dispute between Ms. Barto and AK concerning their different understandings of the rules for the ``$10,000 Music Challenge'' demonstrates why it is important for stations to broadcast all of the material terms of a contest. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00897.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00897.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00897.txt
      • EAS ($8,000) and public file ($9,000) violations. 9. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. ( 405, the petition for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding is hereby DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau 14 FCC Rcd 6106 (Compl. & Inf. Bur. 1999). 47 U.S.C. ( 503 (b). 47 C.F.R. ( 1.80. This violation was previously incorrectly cited as a violation of Section 73.3526(d). The incorrect rule cite has no impact on the case because the facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that the rule that was violated was Section 73.3526(c); however, we are taking this opportunity to correct the cite. This violation will be properly referred to as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00906.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00906.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00906.txt
      • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcomm further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcomm is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00907.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00907.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00907.txt
      • it is a ``start-up firm, independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation.'' Callcom further argues that its qualification as a small business entity requires the Commission, pursuant to SBREFA, to ``provide for reduction or waiver of penalties. . . .'' The Commission, through its Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules, has already considered its obligations under SBREFA and enunciated the appropriate guidance for upward and downward adjustments to forfeitures, as provided by SBREFA. See Jerry Szoka, 14 FCC Rcd 9857, 9866 (1999), recon. denied 14 FCC Rcd 20147 (1999). Using this guidance, we do not find that Callcom is entitled to a further reduction or cancellation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00908.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00908.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00908.txt
      • that it ``never authorized ACS to relocate the WPIM675 repeater . . . [and] . . . was not aware of any such relocation'' and that ``ACS never intended to relocate facilities licensed to Arvada.'' III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Arvada's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00940.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00940.txt
      • new person within the Office of the Sheriff as the point of contact for all matters related to the license, and has notified the Commission of this assignment. III. DISCUSSION 5. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case, and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission by Section 504(b) of the Act, and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of the Rules, we have determined that rescission of the forfeiture is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, that the forfeiture issued against County of Surry IS RESCINDED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall be
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00948.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00948.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00948.txt
      • violations, when coupled with its culpability, offset Bay's overall history and market situation. Further, neither Bay's small business status nor its asserted inability to pay warrants reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture. The forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Bay Broadcasting Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000). The forfeiture is imposed for willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act and Sections 73.1201, 73.1675, 73.1690 and 74.1251 of the Commission's rules. Among other things, those provisions proscribe operation of unlicensed transmitters; certain modifications to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00951.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00951.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00951.txt
      • organs in patently offensive terms. Because the material aired between 6:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m., when there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience, it is legally actionable. Thus, it appears that on February 26, 1999, Station KROR-FM, violated 18 U.S.C. � 1464 by airing indecent programming. 8. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00960.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00960.txt
      • consummated the assignments. Champion's authorizations expired on April 1, 1999. Champion, however, did not file applications for the renewal of those authorizations until June 3, 1999. WTB granted the late-filed renewal applications on September 20, 1999. 4. On November 4, 1999, WTB, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, issued the referenced NAL in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to Champion for the late filing of its license renewal applications. 5. On December 6, 1999, the FCC received Champion's response to the NAL. In that response, Champion argues that its failure to file timely renewal applications was not willful because it did not know
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00970.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00970.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00970.txt
      • any and all violations occurring during the period from 1993 to 1999 as a ``convenient target.'' Finally, Mr. Holcombe argues that he has been denied a fair hearing of the facts and the right to due process. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Holcombe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00977.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00977.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00977.txt
      • Meyers contends that the reference in the NAL to the interference complaints received by the Houston Office between 1993 and 1999 unfairly suggests that he is responsible for those violations and was intended to prejudice the Commission. DISCUSSION As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Meyers' response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da993034.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da993034.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da993034.txt
      • amount of $11,000 against James Lee Gaskey for willful violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 301. The noted violation involves radio operation without a license. On April 28, 1999, the Commission's Kansas City, Missouri Field Office, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, issued the referenced Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $11,000 to Mr. Gaskey for the noted violation. A response to the NAL was filed on behalf of Mr. Gaskey by his attorney on June 1, 1999. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc003.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc003.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc003.txt
      • stand-alone facsimile machines.'' Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12405 (1995) (TCPA Memorandum Opinion and Order). 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). TCPA Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12408. Id. 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 April ? @ � � � � -�-&U)�E/A8 |���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]�
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc054.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc054.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc054.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc056.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc056.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc056.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc130.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc130.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc131a.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc131a.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc131a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc132a.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc132a.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc132a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc133.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc133.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc133.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc134.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc134.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc134.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc135.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc135.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc135.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc148a.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc148a.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc148a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc149a.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc149a.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc149a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc150a.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc150a.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc150a.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc165.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc165.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc165.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc166.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc166.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc166.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc167.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc167.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc167.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc168.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc168.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc168.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc169.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc169.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc169.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc171.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc171.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc171.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc172.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc172.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc172.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc175.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc175.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc175.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc176.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc176.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc176.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc179.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc179.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb00tc179.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc002.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc002.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc002.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc003.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc003.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc003.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc004.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc004.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc004.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc005.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc005.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc005.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc006.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc006.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc006.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc007.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc007.html
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc008.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc008.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/eb99tc008.txt
      • sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(d)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 68.318(d). Please be advised that subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules may result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(3). The phrase ``unsolicited advertisement'' is defined in the TCPA and the Commission's rules as ``any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 64.1200(f)(5). Both the TCPA and the Commission's rules define ``telephone facsimile
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00110.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00110.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00110.txt
      • 23, 2000 Released: March 29, 2000 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we dismiss in part and deny in part the March 31, 1999 application for review filed by Mark H. Fulling of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, the former Compliance and Information Bureau found Mr. Fulling liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $8,000 for operation of an unlicensed FM broadcast station, in willful violation of Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the application in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00196.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00196.txt
      • we believe a total forfeiture of $40,000 is appropriate and consistent with the Central Illinois and Puget Sound cases. We allocate the forfeitures as follows: $22,000 to Roadrunner, $10,000 to DOE, and $4,000 each to City Courier and Eastside/Westside. IV. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Dynamex Operations East, Inc., City Courier, Inc., and Eastside/Westside, Inc. ARE LIABLE FOR MONETARY FORFEITURES in the amounts of $22,000, $10,000, $4,000, and $4,000, respectively, for their willful and repeated violations of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 310(d), and former Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0021.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0021.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0021.txt
      • impose a forfeiture of $35,000 on WQAM License Limited Partnership (``licensee''), licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, for willful and repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1464, which prohibits the broadcast of indecent material. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 312(a)(6) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 312(a)(6) and 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(f)(4). 2. By Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL''), FCC 99-187, released July 22, 1999, we determined that certain material apparently broadcast over WQAM on five days in May 1998 was indecent. Inasmuch as the material was apparently aired between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., we concluded that the broadcasts occurred
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00219.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00219.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00219.txt
      • the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send eight unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that Tri-Star is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $47,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00230.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00230.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00230.txt
      • those guidelines will not change the definition of indecency or the Commission's enforcement procedures, both of which have been affirmed by the courts. Moreover, as we have previously stated, ``[w]hile we still intend to issue such guidance, we continue to believe that our existing rulemaking orders and case law provide sufficient guidance.'' Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (Reconsideration Order), 15 FCC Rcd 303, 306 (1999). Thus, we find no merit to Citicasters' argument that it is unable to substantively respond to the NAL until after issuance of the guidelines and we see no reason to await issuance of the guidelines before imposing the forfeiture order in this case. In
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00239.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00239.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00239.txt
      • mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction of the $2,400,000 forfeiture penalty. Finally, we note that evidence of further violations may lead to institution of a proceeding to revoke BDP's authorization to be a long distance carrier under section 214. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Business Discount Plan, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000) for violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December 1997 to December 1998
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00261.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00261.txt
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Intellicall continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Intellicall's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Intellicall Operator Services is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred ninety eight thousand dollars ($198,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00262.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00262.txt
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If Matrix continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke Matrix's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Matrix Telecom, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred thirteen thousand dollars ($113,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00263.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00263.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00263.txt
      • and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 34 unsolicited advertisements identified above. We have further determined that Carolina Liquidators is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $230,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Carolina Liquidators, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $230,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00268.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00268.txt
      • for assessing an appropriate forfeiture amount for the violations that were subject to a forfeiture from July 23, 1998 forward. Accordingly, ENSERCH's argument that the NAL violated the statute of limitations is rejected. ENSERCH also argues that the forfeiture exceeds the $82,500 maximum forfeiture for any single action or failure to act. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5)(iii). We reject that argument because each station that ENSERCH transferred without Commission approval constitutes a separate violation of the Act and the Commission's rules. See Courtesy Communications, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 4198, 4200 (1999). The $82,500 statutory maximum represents the maximum forfeiture that can be issued ``for any single act or failure to act described in paragraph (1) of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00275.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00275.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00275.txt
      • Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 20 unsolicited advertisements to the consumers identified above. We have further determined that US Notary is apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $90,000. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that US Notary, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $90,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00276.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00276.txt
      • basis for additional notices of apparent liability. If ATNC continues to violate our universal service rules, such violations could result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures, or could result in issuance of a show cause order to revoke ATNC's operating authority. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, America's Tele-Network Corp. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred fifty-four thousand dollars ($154,000) for violating the Act and the Commission's rules requiring regular contributions for universal service. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty days of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00278.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00278.txt
      • of Peace for willful and repeated violations of the main studio rule, 47 C.F.R. � 73.1125. 2. After considering all of the facts and circumstances, we believe the licensee made significant good faith efforts to comply with the main studio rules. We conclude that no sanction should be imposed. See generally The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17101, 17116 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules and accompanying note, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4) (downward adjustment for good faith). 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority granted by section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.txt
      • 1217, 1221-24 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Garden State Broad. Ltd. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386, 393-94 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The figure contained in Section 503(b)(2)(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(c), is $75,000. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-358), the maximum has been adjusted for inflation up to $82,500. See Section 1.80(b)(5)(iii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5)(iii). Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-314 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 00- ' 0 � � 0 b � � � � � � ? @ A T U f g �U �U �U ? @ A T U f g �U �U �U U g { {
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00347.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00347.txt
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: September 14, 2000 Released: September 19, 2000 By the Commission: This Order amends Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties defined in that section to account for inflation since the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00377.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00377.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00377.txt
      • within 30 days of issuance of an NAL, Tri-Star failed to respond to an NAL or pay the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Tri-Star Marketing, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $47,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 4. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00378.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00378.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00378.txt
      • evidence, which persuades us not to issue any forfeiture for those alleged violations. Thus, we reduce the proposed $1,000,000 forfeiture penalty to $680,000. We note that evidence of further slamming violations could result in additional enforcement proceedings against Vista. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that Vista Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of six hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($680,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1100, 64.1150. Payment shall be made
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00390.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00390.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00390.txt
      • not exceed the $110,000 statutory limit for a single violation forfeiture. The nature of calculations is irrelevant to issues of statutory compliance. We continue to believe a $99,000 forfeiture is appropriate for that violation based on all the facts and circumstances at issue. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, Intellicall Operator Services IS LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ninety nine thousand dollars ($99,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 254 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 254, and Section 54.706 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 54.706. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00393.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00393.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00393.txt
      • 30 days of issuance of an NAL, Carolina Liquidators failed to respond to the NAL or pay the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture in the full amount proposed in the NAL. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Carolina Liquidators, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $230,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders. 4. Payment of the forfeiture
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00413.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00413.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00413.txt
      • 28, 2000 By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we deny the April 24, 2000, application for review filed by Colorado Small Business Development Association, Inc. (``CSBDA'') and Westall Communications, d/b/a/ M.T.W. (``Westall'') of the Forfeiture Order in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, the Enforcement Bureau found CSBDA liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 and Westall liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $12,000 for unauthorized construction and operation of business radio transmitters in the greater Denver, Colorado area, in willful violation of Section 301 of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00419.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00419.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00419.txt
      • well as the reasons set forth in the Bureau's February 25, 2000, MO&O. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.115(g) of the Rules, Buchanan Broadcasting Company, Inc.'s application for review of the MO&O released February 25, 2000, IS DENIED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(f) of the Rules, Buchanan Broadcasting Company, Inc., shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, pay the amount of $9,000 for willful and repeated violations of Sections 73.49, 73.1560(a)(1), and 73.1745(a) of the Rules and the terms of the WJNT station authorization. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00420.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00420.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00420.txt
      • By the Commission: 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part the May 19, 2000 application for review filed by WGUL-FM, Inc., licensee of Station WINV(AM), of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the former Compliance and Information Bureau ("CIB") found WGUL-FM, Inc. liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 for willful and continuous violation of rule sections 11.52(d) (EAS code and attention signal monitoring requirements), 11.61(a) (tests of EAS procedures), and 73.3526(c) (availability of public inspection file for public inspection). For the reasons
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00422.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00422.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00422.txt
      • agree that the proposed forfeiture amount, $1,120,000, is somewhat excessive in light of these gross revenues and LLD's financial situation. Accordingly, and in light of the seriousness of the violation, we reduce the forfeiture amount from $1,120,000 to $750,000. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4), that LLD Services Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and the Commission's rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier conversions, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1100, 64.1150. For collection, the Commission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00423.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00423.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00423.txt
      • after finding that the carrier had made a few payments before notification of potential enforcement action. By contrast, ATNC made no payments prior to the Enforcement Bureau's letter, and still has never committed to pay off its arrearage within a specified timeframe. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, America's Tele-Network Corp. is LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred fifty-four thousand dollars ($154,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating section 254 of the Act, and section 54.706 of the Commission's rules. 12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.txt
      • ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.� 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Business Discount Plan, Inc. IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.� 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.80(f)(4), that Business Discount Plan, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum of one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) for violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 201(b), 258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders in effect from December 1997 to December 1998 governing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00425.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00425.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00425.txt
      • the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the 152 unsolicited advertisements identified above. We have further determined that 21st Century Fax is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $1,107,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that 21st Century Fax(es) Ltd. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $1,107,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) and 64.1200(f)(5) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 64.1200(a)(3), 64.1200(f)(5), and the related orders described
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00446.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00446.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00446.txt
      • liable for forfeitures in the amount of $80,000 for each of the two conversions based on an apparently forged letter of agency, and $40,000 for each of the remaining 12 violations, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $640,000. 35. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that AT&T Communications, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $640,000 for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs above. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0082.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0082.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc0082.txt
      • pending; Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 720-27 (1995). Rev. Valentin has not filed for (let alone received) a Commission license. He intentionally broke the law. Therefore, we deny Rev. Valentin's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's NOF. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Sections 1.80 and 1.115(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.80 and 1.115(g), Rev. Valentin's Application for Review IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rev. Valentin and counsel. Payment may be made by credit card through the Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center, (202)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc99391.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc99391.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc99391.txt
      • or other device to send 19 unsolicited advertisements to the eight consumers identified above. We have further determined that Get-Aways is apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of $4,500 for each such violation resulting in a total forfeiture amount of $85,500. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $85,500 for willful or repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc99401.html
      • complaint. Therefore, these claims are not properly before us, and we need not address them. See 47 C.F.R. 1.721(a); see also GE Capital Communications Services v. AT&T, 13 FCC Rcd at 13,149, para. 24 (declining to resolve issues raised for the first time in the complainant's brief). 94 See Consumer.Net Brief at 14. 95 47 U.S.C. 208, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(e). 96 See Halprin v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22,568, 22,581, at para. 29 (1998). While the violations at issue here standing alone do not fall within the one-year statute of limitations period established in section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(B), the Commission is concerned with AT&T's failure to comply fully with the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-04-437A2.html
      • file its Registration Statement; $12,000 (below the maximum allowed by the OSC but not inconsistent with precedent, see, e.g., Broadstreet Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 7938 (Enf. Bur. 2002)) for the unauthorized discontinuation of service in Vermont; $40,000 (below the maximum allowed by the OSC but not inconsistent with precedent (see, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.80, note to section (b)(4), Section 1) for each of nine unauthorized changes of long distance telephone service for a total of $360,000; $10,000 (the maximum allowed by MO&O, FCC 03M-33) for BOI's willful failure to timely make its TRS contribution; and $10,000 (less than what MO&O, FCC 03M-33 allowed but consistent with 47 C.F.R. 1.80, note to section (b)(4), Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-91A1.html
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as "any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services." 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-159A1.html
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as "any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services." 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-1971A1.html
      • Issued by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau -FCC- 47 C.F.R. S:S: 54.401(a)(1) and 54.405. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Lifeline and Link Up, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 26 FCC Rcd 9022 at para. 9 (2011). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 180(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). See 47 U.S.C. S: 214. PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1971A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-1992A1.html
      • Competition and Broadband Reporting (2011) (regarding filings due March 1, 2012), available at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf (FCC Form 477 Instructions). We attach a list of Frequently Asked Questions to provide guidance for the most common filing concerns. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.7001, 43.11; FCC Form 477 Instructions at 5, 14-16, 19. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 180(b); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). PUBLIC NOTICE FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1992A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-249A1.html
      • to Use "Cell Jammers" and Other Equipment that Blocks, Jams, or Interferes with Authorized Radio Communications in the U.S., FCC Enforcement Advisory, DA 11-250 (2011). See 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(c)-(d). See 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(c); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.807(d). See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503, 510; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE Page 1 of 2 FCC ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.doc
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-12-170A1.html
      • CPNI rules. Failure to receive this notice does not absolve a provider of the obligation to meet the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Commission's rules and orders. Companies should read the full text of the relevant CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2001 et seq. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). Section 226 defines an aggregator as "any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services." 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/da002383.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/da002383.html
      • 403. In addition, section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess monetary forfeitures against common carriers of up to one hundred thousand dollars for each violation, or day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of one million dollars for a single act or failure to act. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5) (inflation adjustments to the maximum forfeiture amount). See 47 U.S.C. � 255; 47 C.F.R. �� 6.1 et seq. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov $ $ �����PNG > �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� ��
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/OTH.html
      • marked with an asterisk (*) involved an indecency complaint received on or after November 8, 1999. 04-04-2008 [20]Complaints Against Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox Television Network Program "Married By America" on April 7, 2003 (ORDER) 01-31-2008 [21]Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program "NYPD Blue (ERRATUM) 06-01-2007 [22]Amendment of Section 1.80(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules: Increase of Forfeiture Maxima for Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts to Implement The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (ORDER) 11-06-2006 [23]Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005 (ORDER) 10-17-2006 [24]VIACOM Inc., Infinity Radio Inc. (ORDER ON RECON) 10-17-2006 [25]Emmis Communications Corporation, WKQX(FM), Chicago, Illinois (ORDER ON RECON.) 05-31-2006 [26]Complaints
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Pleadings/Bluenose_Broadcasting.pdf
      • COUNSEL (202)429-4900 TELECOPIER: (202)429-4912 e-mail: general@g2w2.com website:www.g2w2.com December3,2004 BYFIRSTCLASSMAIL,POSTAGEPREPAIDANDBYHAND WilliamH.Davenport,Chief InvestigationsandHearingsDivision EnforcementBureau FederalCommunicationsCommission 44512thStreet,S.W. Room4-C330 Washington,D.C.20554 Re: BluenoseBroadcastingofSavannah,LLC WTGS(TV),Hardeeville,SC FileNo.EB-03-IH-0162 FRN6597041 FacilityIDNo.27245 NAUAcctNo.20043208307 DearMr.Davenport: BluenoseBroadcastingofSavannah,LLC,("Bluenose"),licenseeofWTGS(TV), Hardeeville,SouthCarolina,byitsattorneys,herebyrespondstotheNoticeof ApparentLiabilityforForfeiture("NAL")issuedbytheCommissiononOctober12, 2004tolicenseesofFoxTelevisionNetworkstations.1Forthereasonssetforthbelow, aswellasthereasonsstatedintheseparatelyfiledJointResponsetowhichBluenoseis 11ntheMatterofComplaintsAgainstVariousLicenseesRegardingTheirBroadcastoftheFoxTelevisionNetwork Program"MarriedbyAmerica"onApril7,2003,NoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture,FCC04-242, NAL/AcctNo.200532080003,EB-03-IH-0162(reI.Oct.12,2004).OnNovember3,2004,byemail,you grantedBluenose'srequestforanextensionoftime,uptoDecember3,2004,bywhichtorespondtothis NAL. Mr.WilliamH.Davenport December3,2004 Page2 aparty,2Bluenoserespectfullyrequestscancellationorreductionofthe$7,000forfeiture proposedintheNAL. WTGS(TV)isanaffiliateoftheFoxTelevisionNetwork.IntheNAL,the Commissionproposeda$7,000forfeitureforeachFoxaffiliate,includingWTGS(TV), thatairedanepisodeoftheFoxprogram,"MarriedbyAmerica,"basedonitsfinding thattheepisodeincludedprogrammaterialthatwasinconsistentwiththe Commission'sindecencystandards. Inadditiontothegroundsforcancellationorreductionthatarearticulatedinthe JointResponse,Bluenoserequestscancellationorreductionofthe$7,000forfeiture proposedintheNALbaseduponthedownwardadjustmentcriteriaspecifiedinthe COmn:lission'sguidelinesforassessingSection503forfeitures.3Theseguidelinespermit aproposedforfeituretobeadjusteddownwardbasedon,amongotherthings,ahistory ofoverallcompliance.4 BluenoseisingoodstandingwiththeCommissionandhasahistoryof complyingwiththeCommission'srules.IntheentiretimethatBluenosehasbeenan FCClicensee,ithasnotbeenthesubjectofanyforfeiture,penalty,oradmonishmentby, theCommissionforruleviolations.sInshort,Bluenosehasthekindofhistoryof overallcompliancethatwarrantsadownwardadjustmentundertheforfeiturecriteria. 2IntheMatterofComplaintsAgainstVariousLicenseesRegardingTheirBroadcastoftheFoxTelevisionNetwork Program"MarriedbyAmerica"onApril7,2003,OppositiontoNoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture, submittedbyFoxBroadcastingCompanyandTheLicenseesoftheTelevisionBroadcastStations AffiliatedwiththeFoxTelevisionNetwork,IdentifiedInAttachmentAThereto,NAL/Acct.No. 200532080003,EB-03-IH-0162(filedDec.3,2004)("JointResponse"). 3See47C.F.R.�1.80,NotetoParagraph(b)(4):GuidelinesforAssessingForfeitures,SectionII, AdjustmentCriteriaforSection503Forfeitures. 4ld.;seealso,IntheMatterofEntercomSeattleLicense,LLC;LicenseeofStationKNDD(FM),Seattle, Washington,MemorandumOpinionandOrder,19FCCRed.9069(2004)(upholdingaforfeitureorderto whichtheEnforcementBureauhadmadeadownwardadjustmentduetothelicensee'soverallhistoryof compliance). 5Bluenose,whichwasformerlyknownasBrissetteBroadcastingofSavannah,LLC,becamethelicensee ofWTGS(TV)inJanuary1999. GOLDBERG,GODLES,WIENER &WRIGHT .-- -.- , Mr.WilliamH.Davenport December3,2004 Page3 Accordingly,andforthereasonsstatedhereinandintheJointResponse,the Commissionshouldrescindorreducethe$7,000forfeitureproposedintheNAL. Res~pectfullsJbmitted-' ., --- \. ~ ),r~~ ie ~I~~rl j ,~Go] ~, JoseJ:1hA.Godl~/ kutaA.Stefani AttorneysforBluenoseBroadcasting ofSavannah,LLC GOLDBERG. GODLES.WIENER &WRIGHT
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Pleadings/Lingard_Broadcasting.pdf
      • I IIIIIIIIIII I I I I\\ Beforethe FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington,D.C.20554 )) ComplaintsAgainstVariousLicenseesRegarding) TheirBroadcastOfTheFoxTelevisionNetwork) Program"MarriedByAmerica"OnApril7,2003) IntheMatterof NAL/Acct.No.200432080349 FileNo.EB-03-IH-0162 To:TheCommission OPPOSITIONTONOTICEOFAPPARENTLIABILITYFORFORFEITURE 1.LingardBroadcastingCorporation(hereinafter"LBC")isthelicenseeof TelevisionStationWLOV-TV,WestPoint,Mississippi.OnOctober12,2004,the CommissionreleasedaNoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture("NAL")citing169 FoxTelevisionNetworkstations-includingWLOV-TV-forallegedlybroadcasting IIII\III\III\IIIIIIIIIindecentmaterial"duringanepisodeoftheprogramMarriedByAmerica,airedbyFox TelevisionNetworkonApril7,2003."BasedupontheCommission's"reviewofthe facts,"theCommissionissuedtheNALandimposeduponLBCamonetaryforfeiturein theamountof$7,000.00. 2.Thereisbeingfiledcontemporaneouslyherewith,thejoint"OppositionTo NoticeOfApparentLiabilityForForfeiture"("JointOpposition")onbehalfofnumerous partiestothisproceeding.Amongothers,LBCisapartytosaid"JointOpposition,"fully endorsesit,andincorporatesithereinbyreference,initsentirety.Nonetheless,pursuant IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I to�1.80oftheCommission'sRulesandparagraph19oftheNAL,LBCwishestosubmit certainadditionalmaterialasfollows.l 3.LBCbelievesthatitisimportantthattheCommissionbemadeawareof certainfactswhichithasoverlooked.First,noneofthecomplaintsreceivedbythe CommissioninconnectionwiththenetworkbroadcastoftheApril7,2003episodeof MarriedByAmericawasdirectedagainstWLOV-TV.Second,atnotimehasLBC receivedanywritten,verbal,e-mailorotherformofcomplaintconcerningtheprogram knownasMarriedByAmerica.Inaddition,priortotheissuanceoftheNAL,LBChas operatedWLOV -TVsinceitsacquisitiononAugust12,1994,withoutoncebeingcited bytheCommissionforanyreason,letalonebroadcastingindecentprogramming. 4.TheCommissionrecognizesinitsNALthat"[t]heFirstAmendmenttothe UnitedStatesConstitutionandsection326oftheActprohibittheCommissionfrom censoringprogrammaterialandfrominterferingwithbroadcasters'freedomof expression.,,2NotwithstandingtheCommission'sapparent,limitedauthoritytoregulate certainprogramming/theCommission'sissuanceoftheNALagainstWLOV-TV,which wasnevereventhesubjectofacomplaint,istantamounttotheverygovernment censorshipspecificallyprohibitedunder�Section326oftheCommunicationsAct.4Not onlydoes�326prohibitcensorship,italsomakesclearthat"noregulationorcondition shallbepromulgatedorfixedbytheCommissionwhichshallinterferewiththerightof freespeechbymeansofradiocommunication."(Emphasisadded).5TheCommission's actionsinthiscaserelativetoitsviewsofindecencyasdescribedintheaforementioned 1Pursuanttoe-mailcorrespondenceofNovember8,2004,thetimeforLBCtorespondtotheNALdirected againstitwasextendedtoandincludingDecember3,2004. 2SeeNoticeofApparentLiabilityforForfeiture,FCC04-242,atpara.4(reI.October12,2004). 3Id,atpara.6. 4See47V.S.C.�326whichstatinginpertinentpart:Censorship.Nothinginthischaptershallbe understoodorconstruedtogivetheCommissionthepowerofcensorshipovertheradiocommunicationsor signalstransmittedbyanyradiostation...." 5ld. 2 I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ "JointOpposition,"amounttonothingshortoffrighteninglychillingbehavior,indirect contraventionof�326oftheAct.Clearly,thefactsinthiscase-viewedinthelightof applicablecaselaw-resultinacombinationofa"chillingeffect,"priorrestraintand effectively,censorship.Itappearsthatwehavereachedthestagewhereatelevision stationlicenseecanbefinedbytheCommissionmerelyforwhatsomesmallnumberof viewers-andCommissionstaff-imaginetheysaw. 5.TheCommission'sactionsinthisandotherrecentlyreleased"indecency" casesarevagueandambiguousastowhatdoes,ordoesnot,constituteindecency.The Commission'sconclusionsinthiscase-basedinlargepartupontheimagined perceptionsofaminusculenumberofviewers-isclearlyarbitrary,capricious,andan abuseofdiscretionundertheAdministrativeProcedureAct.8
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/Pleadings/Viacom.pdf
      • a "final determination that [the] specific" speech presents a violation) (citing Southeastern Promos., Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 561 (1975); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 66 (1953)). 63 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd. 4043, � 21 (2002) (citing Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd. 303, � 4 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Recon.")). 40 alleged "recent indecent broadcasts by Viacom-owned radio stations" when in fact the cases it relies upon do not involve any determination that the broadcasts in question were actionably indecent, and in most of the cases there has been only a finding
    • http://www.fcc.gov/eb/otherinfo/fcc97218.html
      • tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) The Commission's Forfeiture ) CI Docket No. 95-6 Policy Statement and ) Amendment of Section 1.80 ) of the Rules to Incorporate ) the Forfeiture Guidelines ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: June 19, 1997 Released: July 28, 1997 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Forfeiture versus the traditional 5 case-by-case approach B. Proposal Modifications 9 (i) Use of the same base forfeiture amount for
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-1011A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-1011A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-1011A1.txt
      • $2,000 as the base amount for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. In this case, we believe that a forfeiture of $1,000 is appropriate due to the prior unblemished enforcement record of the licensee. IV. Ordering Clauses 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Southern Rhode Island Public Radio Broadcasting, Inc., licensee, noncommercial educational Station WBLQ(FM), Westerly, Rhode Island, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating 47 U.S.C. Section 399b and Section 73.503 of the Commission's rules. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-1640A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-1640A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-1640A1.txt
      • broadcasts the resulting conversation without giving prior notice, Citicasters' actions appear to be directly contrary to the language of the rule, which requires prior notice before a conversation is broadcast. We also find that Citicasters' conduct is inconsistent with the rule's purpose of protecting parties to telephone conversations. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-2055A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-2055A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-2055A1.txt
      • arrangements to paint the tower eventually engaged a second company. By letter dated July 19, 2000, Kona Koast notified the Commission that the tower had been painted and was in compliance with the Commission's Rules. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), requires that, in examining Kona Koast's response, the Commission take into account the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-2164A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-2164A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-2164A1.txt
      • the rule by denying Mr. Huffman access to the public file and by asking him why he wanted access to the file. Furthermore, Riverside also violated Section 73.3526 by failing to place certain materials in the public inspection file, including certain issues/programs lists and EEO Model Program Reports. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-225A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-225A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-225A1.txt
      • Case No. 99DV446 Sterling, Colorado 80751 ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 7, 1999 Released: February 9, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. This order imposes a forfeiture against Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``Arnold Broadcasting'') in the amount of $16,000 pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, for willful violations of Sections 11.35, 11.61, 17.4, 73.1225, 73.1350, 73.1820, and 73.1870 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 11.35, 11.61, 17.4, 73.1225, 73.1350, 73.1820, and 73.1870. These violations include failure to comply with the Rules for Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment and antenna structure registration, as well as numerous
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-227A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-227A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-227A1.txt
      • find that the violations were willful. The Commission has held that an act or omission is ``willful'' if it is a conscious and deliberate act or omission, whether or not there is any intent to violate the rule. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the violations warrant the imposition of a monetary forfeiture. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules require us to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." The Commission has adopted guidelines for assessing forfeitures. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-238A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-238A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-238A1.txt
      • non-broadcast means (such as the World Wide Web) can be considered in determining whether adequate disclosure has been made, the non-broadcast disclosures must be ``[i]n addition to the required broadcast announcements. . . .'' Id. Thus, while non-broadcast disclosures can supplement broadcast announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadcast announcements. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b), the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-476A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-476A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-476A1.txt
      • provided copies of its 1996 and 1997 federal income tax returns with its August, 1999, response and provided a copy of its 1998 federal income tax returns with a supplemental response received September 28, 1999. III. DISCUSSION 8. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Natchez's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-511A1.pdf
      • and Ordering Clauses 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that WTTW's request for reduction or rescission filed January 2, 1998 IS GRANTED to the extent that we approve a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount from $5,000 to $2,000. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Window to the World Communications, Inc., licensee of noncommercial educational television station WTTW (TV), Chicago, Illinois, shall FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000), for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 399b, and Section 73.621(e) of the Commission's rules. 6.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-516A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-516A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-516A1.txt
      • to Bernard A. Solnik, Esq., Case No. 02120518 (MMB March 25, 1996). None of these rulings contain any analysis or discussion of the digital delay system. Moreover, none of the language in those rulings is inconsistent with the plain language of the rule, which clearly requires prior notification. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-571A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-571A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-571A1.txt
      • submission is not supported in this manner and, therefore, provides no reliable basis for Hoosier's claim of inability to pay. In any event, the material that Hoosier did submit indicates gross revenues of approximately $52,000 for 1998. A $4,000 forfeiture under these circumstances is not excessive. 8. The forfeiture standards in The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines sets $5,000 as the base forfeiture amount for a willful violation of Section 73.1350(a). The Field Office and the Bureau reviewed the record, which included Hoosier's operating history and claims of vandalism, and concluded that a $4,000 forfeiture was indicated instead of the $5,000 base forfeiture amount. We affirm that conclusion. IV.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-636A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-636A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-636A1.txt
      • 29, 1999, the Commission's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for Forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars (20,000). Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc. has not filed a response. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Kel-Comm Broadcasting Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount $20,000, for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of the Act, and Sections 1.89, 11.15, 11.35, 11.41, 17.4, 17.21, and 17.50 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-848A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-848A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-848A1.txt
      • support that claim. The financial statements, which are marked ``unaudited'' and do not contain a certification of their correctness, indicate that KNFL's gross revenues were $56,387 in 1996, $80,888 in 1997 and $119,654 in 1998. III. DISCUSSION 7. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining KNFL's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-883A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-883A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-00-883A1.txt
      • supplement broadcast announcements, they cannot act as a substitute for broadcast announcements. The dispute between Ms. Barto and AK concerning their different understandings of the rules for the ``$10,000 Music Challenge'' demonstrates why it is important for stations to broadcast all of the material terms of a contest. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a), each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-19A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-19A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-19A1.txt
      • the amount to $14,000. 2. Arnold's Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition"), requests that the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') specify the amounts assessed for each violation and state whether we arrived at the forfeiture amount by using any upward or downward adjustments. In this regard, Arnold argues that the forfeiture amount is excessive and should, at most, be $11,000 in accordance with Section 1.80 of the Rules. We calculated the forfeiture against Arnold as follows: $8,000 base amount for the ( 11.35 violation adjusted upward by $2,000 ($10,000); $3,000 base amount for the ( 73.1350 violations adjusted upward by $1,000 ($4,000); $1,000 base amount for the ( 73.1820 violation; and $1,000 for the ( 73.1870 violation. We made an upward adjustment of $2,000 to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-2831A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-2831A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-01-2831A1.txt
      • Section 399B of the Act, and Sections 73.503 and 73.3527 of the Commission's rules, respectively, by broadcasting announcements promoting a for-profit entity and for failing to maintain the station's public file. In light of the station's otherwise unblemished prior enforcement record, however, we find that a monetary sanction is not warranted to redress this rule violation. See Note to Section 1.80 (b)(4) of the Commission's rules. Instead, we believe that an admonishment is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. IV. Ordering Clauses 17. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Isothermal Community College, licensee of noncommercial educational station WNCW(FM), Spindale, North Carolina, IS ADMONISHED for broadcasting advertisements in violation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-1945A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-1945A1.pdf
      • the World Communications, Inc., supra (where $5,000 forfeiture was originally imposed for numerous noncompliant television underwriting announcements repeated over one-year period). This case is more serious, as it involves the broadcast of a larger number of advertisements on many occasions over a lengthy period of time. These factors warrant substantial compounding of the base forfeiture amount. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). However, we do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2336A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2336A1.pdf
      • 16, 2002, and again in a meeting with the Audio Division on April 23, 2002, it offered to take KBKC off the air until the waiver request was processed, but was told that was not necessary. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining AFA's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2793A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2793A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-2793A1.txt
      • been lied to and scammed and that the station was a week away from dismantling when the FCC visited the station the second time. Finally, Mr. Mu�oz submits that neither he nor his church has the funds to pay the $10,000 forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Mr. Mu�oz's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1033A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1033A1.pdf
      • required to operate the station at daytime power 24 hours per day and that he thought that the station had been identifying by call sign. Finally, Monroe indicates that all of the violations have been corrected. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). In examining Monroe's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1504A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1504A1.pdf
      • Florida Field Office (``Tampa Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Ebanks. Mr. Ebanks has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Omar A. Ebanks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1513A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1513A1.pdf
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Rawlins Charles IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1535A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-1535A1.pdf
      • Field Office (``New York Office'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $10,000 to Mr. Alejandro. Mr. Alejandro has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), Fernando Alejandro IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-2196A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-2196A1.pdf
      • assistance from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, is to ``[r]educe or eliminate interference to authorized communciations.'' See 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111(e), 0.131(h). The Commission has promulgated rules to resolve interference disputes. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 22.353, 24.237, 27.58, 90.173(b), 90.403(e). The Commission can assess a forfeiture for failure to comply with an FCC permit or license. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(1), (b)(4) (suggested forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000 per violation). 199 F.3d at 1192 (citing 960 Radio and Mobilecomm). Id. at 1189 (citing Letter from David L. Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Roger Kroh, Director of Planning and Development, Johnnson County Office of Planning, Development and Codes (July 2, 1997) (``CWD 1997 Letter'')). 199 F.3d at
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-363A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-363A1.pdf
      • a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $7,000 to Marshall County. Marshall County has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm the forfeiture. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Marshall County Radio Corp. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.49 of the Rules. 4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-3864A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-3864A1.pdf
      • 4920. See 2001 Response at 4. See Xavier, 5 FCC Rcd 4920. See id. See Public Notice, 7 FCC Rcd 827. 47 U.S.C. � 399b and 47 C.F.R. � 73.503. See 2001 Response. See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, 5 FCC Rcd 7212. 47 C.F.R. � 74.1231(g). See Note to 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. � 399b. 47 C.F.R. � 73.503. 47 C.F.R. � 74.1231(g). Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3864 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3864 W ` � ` g h x y g h x y k q W �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-441A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-441A1.pdf
      • are not persuaded that a reduction of the forfeiture in this case based on AFA's history of compliance is warranted. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, the petition for reconsideration filed by American Family Association IS DENIED. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-1533A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-1533A1.pdf
      • a ``controlled environment'' and implemented a ``common sense'' approach to RFR compliance which is consistent with OET Bulletin 65; and that, if it did violate Section 1.1310 of the Rules, the appropriate sanction is admonishment. Discussion The forfeiture amount in this case is being assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining Americom's response, the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-1600A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-1600A1.pdf
      • December 3, 2002 were inconsistent with UTI's subsequent inspection of the antenna structure. PCI notes that it promptly contacted the FAA of this outage. Accordingly, PCI asserts that the violations were not ``willful.'' III. DISCUSSION 6. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining PCI's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-2539A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-2539A1.pdf
      • evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that station WXAF(FM) served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant Maranatha's license renewal application below. Conclusion/Actions. For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 503(b), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Maranatha Broadcasting Company, Inc. is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $6,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-2540A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-2540A1.pdf
      • not evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that station WSMX(AM) served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant GMI's license renewal application below. Conclusion/Actions. For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 503(b), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Gospel Media, Inc., is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $6,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-3108A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-3108A1.pdf
      • KPLN are specifically referenced - can generate intermodulation interference within some receivers. This interference would theoretically fall on 89.3 MHz, first-adjacent channel to KPBS-FM. An increase in KPBS-FM's signal strength at Mt. Soledad, SDSU suggests, would help overcome any such interference. However, SDSU have provided no evidence that any adverse RITOIE effects exist, even at the present KPBS-FM ERP of 1.80 kW. Accordingly, a waiver on this basis is unwarranted. PTFP Funding. SDSU received a grant of $216,168 in federal funds from PTFP in 1997 to implement the Mt. Soledad operation authorized in construction permit BPED-19970211IA. SDSU is in jeopardy of losing this funding if it cannot implement improvements in KPBS-FM's service. However, economic matters are not considered when waivers of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-3504A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-3504A1.pdf
      • his continued operation of the station was in violation of Section 301 of the Act. After reviewing Mr. Oaks's response, we find that he ``willfully'' and ``repeatedly'' violated Section 301 of the Act. In addition, we conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, that no reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Michael David Oaks IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for willfully
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-3838A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-3838A1.pdf
      • conclude because the announcements seek impermissibly to distinguish favorably their underwriters from competitors by directly stating or implying that they offer superior service or products, and the announcements, in many instances, also invite or urge business patronage. Moreover, the announcements were aired over a substantial period of time-fifteen months. B. Proposed Action 7. Section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement sets forth a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-4023A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-4023A1.pdf
      • fact by telephone on the same day. Citadel also asserts that all quarterly issues and program lists have since been placed in the files and that Citadel has a good record of compliance. III. DISCUSSION 8. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). In examining Citadel's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-05-2382A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-05-2382A1.pdf
      • USA,'' leaves little doubt that Gibson was fully aware that the R-FM25B-WT and R-FM100B-WT have not been authorized for sale in the United States. We find, accordingly, that Gibson apparently marketed two models of uncertified FM broadcast transmitters in the United States, in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(2) of the Rules. Section 1.80(d) of the Rules provides in pertinent part that: No forfeiture penalty shall be imposed upon any person under this section, if such person does not hold a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, and if such person is not an applicant for a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, unless, prior to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1332A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1332A1.pdf
      • determine that Brazos willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules based on its admission that issues/programs lists were destroyed during a studio move in 2002 and that these lists could not be recreated. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Brazos' Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1488A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1488A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the March 24, 2006, request of Frank J. Neely (``Neely''), for waiver of the post-auction Form 301 ``long form'' application filing deadline. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Neely apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a post-auction Form 301 application. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that Neely is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1498A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1498A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of South Atlanta Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WSSA(AM), Morrow, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file its license renewal application, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1499A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1499A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of John Reynolds (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W267AD, Bryson City, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1500A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1500A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Capstar TX Limited Partnership (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHJJ(AM), Providence, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WHJJ(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1501A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1501A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of the College of the Holy Cross (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCHC(FM), Worcester, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WCHC(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1502A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1502A1.pdf
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Emerson College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WERS(FM), Boston, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WERS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1503A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1503A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Davidson Media Station WXCT Licensee, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WXCT(AM), Southington, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WXCT(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1504A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1504A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Rose City Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WWZN(AM), Boston, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WWZN(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1505A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1505A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Baker University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNBU(FM), Baldwin City, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KNBU(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we:
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1889A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1889A1.pdf
      • application of Cobb Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K261AO, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and K230BY, Kuparuk, Alaska (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1890A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1890A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Valley Air, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KVLR(FM), Twisp, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the KVLR(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1891A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1891A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Geneva Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WGVA(AM), Geneva, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WGVA(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1892A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1892A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Canandaigua Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WCGR(AM), Canandaigua, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WCGR(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1893A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1893A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Rose City Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNR(AM), Jersey City, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSNR(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1894A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1894A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of the Board of Trustees, Davis & Elkins College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCDE(FM), Elkins, West Virginia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1895A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1895A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Lehigh Carbon Community College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WXLV(FM), Schnecksville, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WXLV(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1897A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1897A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of William L. Bonner (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WKBY(AM), Chatham, Virginia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1921A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1921A1.pdf
      • MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: September 26, 2006 Released: September 27, 2006 By the Chief, Media Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that New Northwest Broadcasters LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations KFAT(FM), Anchorage, Alaska; KRPM(FM), Houston, Alaska; and KDBZ(FM), Anchorage, Alaska (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1), 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3) and 73.2080(c)(5)(iii) of the Rules by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2341A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2341A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio One Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WKAF(FM), Brockton, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WKAF(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2342A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2342A1.pdf
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Roberto Feliz (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station KRRP(AM), Coushatta, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2344A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2344A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Detroit Public Schools (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WRCJ-FM, Detroit, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1943 and 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WRCJ-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2345A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2345A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Mountain Mist Media, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WTKI(AM), Huntsville, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2346A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2346A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of WVRM, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WDDM(FM), Hazlet, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WDDM(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2347A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2347A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Fort Stanton, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KEDU-LP, Ruidoso, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2348A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2348A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Alan Towle (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station K232BE, Wausau, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2349A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2349A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Morgan County Industries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WMOR(AM), Morehead, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules by operating the Station at an unauthorized location. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2351A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2351A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of New Northwest Broadcasters, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KCRX-FM, Seaside, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KCRX-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2380A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2380A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Regent Licensee of Chico, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K300AD, Chico, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2453A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2453A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Infinity Radio Holdings Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W272AT, Columbus, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2454A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2454A1.pdf
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of MVB, Inc., (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WWGC(AM) Albertville, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2455A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2455A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of College Wesleyan Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCWC-LP, Marion, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2579A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2579A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of WBCE, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WBCE(AM), Wickliffe, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-290A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-290A1.pdf
      • amended (``the Act''), provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully fails to comply with any provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must also consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-500A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-500A1.pdf
      • station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. We believe that, consistent with Commission precedent, a forfeiture, rather than designation for evidentiary hearing, is the appropriate sanction for the violation of Section 73.3526 in this case. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-606A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-606A1.pdf
      • 1, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $14,000 to Gibson. Gibson has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Gibson Tech Ed, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-664A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-664A1.pdf
      • NAL on February 14, 2005 (``Response''). In the Response, Alpine states that the NAL is unenforceable against Alpine, and that the agent's assessments of the station's main studio were not consistent with the facts at the time of the inspection. III. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Alpine's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-754A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-754A1.pdf
      • Moreover, we find that these violations, when considered together, do not evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that Station KSLO(AM) served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant KBC's license renewal application below. Conclusion/Actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, KBC is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-755A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-755A1.pdf
      • Moreover, we find no evidence of violations that, when considered together, evidence a pattern of abuse. Further, we find that Station K240CJ served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the subject license term. We will therefore grant the captioned license renewal application. Conclusion/Actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, OCCB is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $1,500 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 with respect to Station K240CJ. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, OCCB SHALL PAY to the United States the full
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-756A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-756A1.pdf
      • throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts nor omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. � 503(b) and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-758A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-758A1.pdf
      • obfuscate the true state of affairs with respect to its public inspection files and to avoid the Commission scrutiny which a ``No'' response would have elicited. We admonish the Licensee for its manner of responding to Section III, Item 3 of each renewal form. Proposed Forfeiture. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Commission's Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-759A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-759A1.pdf
      • Inc. We find that Rogers and Clarion are fully qualified to sell and acquire, respectively, the license for WYXC(AM) and that the grant of the application would further the public interest, convenience and necessity. We will, therefore, grant the application for assignment below. Conclusion/Actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Rogers Communications, Inc. is hereby advised of its apparent liability for a forfeiture of $7,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's rules and Section 301 of the Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Notice, Rogers
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1044A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1044A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned applications of Down Home Broadcasting (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for Stations WCOX(AM) and WYVC(FM), Camden, Alabama (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Stations
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1045A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1045A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Greenville College Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WGRN(FM), Greenville, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1046A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1046A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Illinois Valley Radio (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WDUK(FM), Havana, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1047A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1047A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Gateway Technical College (``Gateway'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WGTD(FM) Kenosha, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1048A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1048A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Best Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W206BL, Mount Prospect, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1049A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1049A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of the Trustees, Carroll College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WCCX(FM), Waukesha, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1050A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1050A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Hawkins Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WWHN(AM), Joliet, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1051A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1051A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Del Matthew Reynolds (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W247AC, Green Bay, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-109A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-109A1.pdf
      • Sadowski, Esq., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, February 27, 2006. Media Bureau Announces Certain Revisions to Instructions to Form 303-S - Application for Renewal of License for Broadcast Stations, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 8986 (2003). 47 C.F.R. �73.1206. Univision Radio License Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 888 (2005)(forfeiture paid). 47 C.F.R. �1.80(b)(4). See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997) recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). The Commission may adjust the base forfeiture as a result of its consideration of the factors listed in 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1246A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1246A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Charles E. Jones, Jr. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for Station WVFG(FM), Uniontown, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1247A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1247A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Knox College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVKC(FM), Galesburg, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1248A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1248A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bhagwan Dadlani (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W300AN, Montgomery, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-124A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-124A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bowdoin College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBOR(FM), Brunswick, Maine (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file its license renewal application, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1344A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1344A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Faith Bible College, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WTGF(FM), Milton, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1345A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1345A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Metz, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WTCL(AM), Chattahoochee, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1346A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1346A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Newman Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WDSR(AM), Lake City, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1347A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1347A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Big Sky Owners Association, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257AE, West Fork, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1348A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1348A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of WPW Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WLBK(AM), DeKalb, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WLBK(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1378A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1378A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Robert C. Blakes Enterprises, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KKNO(AM), Gretna, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1379A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1379A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of The Master's Mission (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W212AB, Robbinsville, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1380A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1380A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of John P. Reynolds (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W266AC, Blairsville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1381A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1381A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of The Florida Institute of Technology (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WFIT(FM), Melbourne, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1382A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1382A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Mississippi Valley State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVSD(FM), Itta Bena, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1439A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1439A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Cumberland Communities Communications Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WDVX(FM), Clinton, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WDVX(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1440A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1440A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Journal Broadcast Corporation (``the Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KFAQ(AM), Tulsa, Oklahoma, (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the KFAQ(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1441A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1441A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio One Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WFUN-FM, Bethalto, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WFUN-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1442A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1442A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of the Spring Arbor University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W258AH, Kalamazoo, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1443A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1443A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Canaan Communications Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WQSE(AM), White Bluff, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1444A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1444A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KTCN(FM), Eureka Springs, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1479A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1479A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of the University of Southern Mississippi (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WUSM-FM, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized operation of the Station
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1480A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1480A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KBPB(FM), Harrison, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1481A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1481A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Marion R. Williams (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WONG(AM), Canton, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1802A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1802A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Tama Radio Licenses of Jacksonville, Florida, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WFJO(FM), Folkston, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1803A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1803A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Marion R. Williams (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WSTT(AM), Thomasville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1804A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1804A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Alabama State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WVAS(FM), Montgomery, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1805A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1805A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of the R & B Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WWTM(AM) Decatur, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1806A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1806A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Applied Life Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for non-commercial educational Station KALR(FM), Hot Springs, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1807A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1807A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Lincoln University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for non-commercial educational Station WLNX(FM), Lincoln, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1810A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1810A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of WBLB, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for Station WBLB(AM), Pulaski, Virginia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1961A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1961A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Vision Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its expired license for Station KPXS(FM), Vidalia, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1963A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1963A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Continental Broadcasting Corp. of Arizona, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KPHX(AM), Phoenix, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the KPHX(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1964A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1964A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Eastern Illinois Christian Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WEIC(AM), Charleston, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WEIC(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1965A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1965A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Taylor Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WJTB(AM), North Ridgeville, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1980A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1980A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Southern Adventist University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WSMC-FM, Collegedale, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSMC-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2099A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2099A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cox Broadcast Group, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCGA(AM), Woodbine, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2100A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2100A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Ace Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WQST(AM), Thomasville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2101A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2101A1.pdf
      • before it (1) the captioned application of Faith Baptist Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KCAS(FM), McCook, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KCAS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2102A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2102A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Northern Oklahoma College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for non-commercial educational Station KAYE-FM, Tonkawa, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-214A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-214A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Citicasters Licenses, L.P., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KPLV(FM), Las Vegas, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KPLV(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-215A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-215A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHCY(FM), Blairstown, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WHCY(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-216A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-216A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSUS(FM), Franklin, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSUS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-217A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-217A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WADR(AM), Remsen, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WADR(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-218A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-218A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WRNY(AM), Rome, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WRNY(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-219A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-219A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WUTQ(AM), Utica, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WUTQ(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-220A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-220A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WUMX(FM), Rome, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WUMX(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-240A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-240A1.pdf
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Brian Rothell (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WCHM(AM), Clarkesville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-241A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-241A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of UA-ASU-TSU Educational Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WAPR(FM), Selma, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-242A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-242A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Brown Broadcasting System, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBKZ(AM), Jefferson, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-243A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-243A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Florala Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WKWL(AM), Florala, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-244A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-244A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Partners for Christian Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WBDX(FM), Trenton, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-245A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-245A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Imani Communications Corporation, Inc., (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBFZ(FM), Selma, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-246A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-246A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Chappell Communications, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHIE(AM), Griffin, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-247A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-247A1.pdf
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of WLVV, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WLVV(AM), Mobile, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-249A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-249A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Milwaukee Board of School Directors (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WYMS(FM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WYMS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-250A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-250A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Sanchez Communications Corporation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K233AK, Hanalei, Hawaii (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-251A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-251A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Radio Assist Ministry, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K201AY, Borger, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2785A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2785A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of J.L. Brewer Broadcasting, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W227AK, Chattanooga, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2786A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2786A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W201BW, Hopkinsville, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2787A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2787A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Educational Radio Foundation of East Texas, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K214BE, Shreveport, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2788A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2788A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of M & D Translator, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W267AL, Syracuse, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2789A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2789A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Capstar TX Limited Partnership (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNE-FM, Taunton, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSNE-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2790A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2790A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KBAC(FM), Las Vegas, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KBAC(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2975A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2975A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Roswell Interarts Organization (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K276ED, Roswell, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2976A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2976A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Shepherd Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K210AD, Santa Barbara, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2977A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2977A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Enterprise City (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K293AF, Enterprise, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3003A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3003A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WZKF(FM), Salem, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WZKF(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3004A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3004A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Citicasters Licenses, LP (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KABQ-FM, Santa Fe, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KABQ-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3005A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3005A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WJLB(FM), Detroit, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WJLB(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3006A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3006A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WJMN(FM), Boston, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WJMN(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3007A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3007A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of CC Licenses, LLC, (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WKCI-FM, Hamden, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WKCI-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3008A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3008A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Capstar TX Limited Partnership (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHJY(FM), Providence, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the WHJY(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3097A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3097A1.pdf
      • for Station KASR(FM), Vilonia, Arkansas (the ``Station''). The Commission also has before it an informal objection (``Objection'') filed by Merrill Media Group (``MMG'') on July 20, 2005. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3245A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3245A1.pdf
      • Hornsby, Texas (the ``Station''), and (2) the Informal Objection (``Objection'') to the application filed on April 1, 2005, by Mr. James R. Ellinger (the ``Objector'' or ``Ellinger''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KOOP(FM) public inspection file, and we find that the Licensee also violated the alien ownership provisions
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3260A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3260A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned applications of Calvary Baptist Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W249AS, Norwich, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Associate Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-330A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-330A1.pdf
      • it the captioned applications of Morgan County Broadcasting Co., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for Stations WECO(AM) and WECO-FM (FM), Wartburg, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-331A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-331A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Manchester College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBKE-FM, North Manchester, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-332A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-332A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Meadowland Baptist Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WBLG-LP, Bowling Green, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-334A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-334A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Gary Community School Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WGVE-FM, Gary, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-336A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-336A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Memphis City Schools (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WQOX(FM), Memphis, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-337A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-337A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bloomington Community Radio Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WFHB(FM), Bloomington, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-339A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-339A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Tennessee Technological University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WTTU(FM), Cookeville, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3419A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3419A1.pdf
      • WWLD(FM), Cairo, Georgia (the ``Stations''). We also have before us the February 12, 2004, informal objection (``Informal Objection'') to the Applications filed by Peter B. Fulton, Inc. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.17 of the Rules by falsely certifying in the captioned license renewal applications that the Stations' public inspection files were complete throughout the license term and by providing in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-342A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-342A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Faith Trinity Assemblies (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WZYZ(FM), Spencer, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-343A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-343A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of John F. Warmath (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WIRJ(AM), Humboldt, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3515A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3515A1.pdf
      • Communications (``Superior'') on January 21, 2005, and a ``Petition to Rescind Grant and Dismiss [the captioned Licensee] Application'' filed by RB Schools (``RB'') on November 17, 2005. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station; willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-352A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-352A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Fairview Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WPFD(AM), Fairview, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-353A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-353A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of RSE Broadcasting, LLC, (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WKWH(AM), Shelbyville, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-354A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-354A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Columbia City Joint High School (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WJHS(FM), Columbia City, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-355A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-355A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Meade County Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WMMG-FM, Brandenburg, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-356A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-356A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Larko Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBZQ(AM), Huntington, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-357A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-357A1.pdf
      • of Franklin Avenue Church of the Living God, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its cancelled license for low power FM Station WYAH-LP, Winchester, Kentucky (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-359A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-359A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Soul's Harbor Assembly of God Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WRDS-LP, Roscommon, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3615A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3615A1.pdf
      • captioned application (the ``Application'') of Access.1 New York License Company LLC (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WWRL(AM), New York, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 1.17 of the Rules by falsely certifying in the WWRL(AM) license renewal application that the Station's public inspection file was complete throughout the license term. Based upon our review
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3617A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3617A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the May 29, 2007, request of E-String Wireless, Ltd. (``ESW''), for waiver of the post-auction Form 301 ``long form'' application filing deadline. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that ESW apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules by failing timely to file a post-auction Form 301 application. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3618A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3618A1.pdf
      • Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the March 1, 2007, request of BKM Enterprises (``BKM''), for waiver of the post-auction Form 301 long-form application filing deadline. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that BKM apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3573(f)(5)(i) and 73.5005(a) of the Rules by failing to timely file a post-auction Form 301 application. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3810A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3810A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Israel G. Ybanez (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for commercial Station KYMI(FM), Los Ybanez, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3902A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3902A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Detroit Lakes Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station KRCQ(FM), Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3903A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3903A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned applications of Lea County Broadcasting Co. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Stations KLEA(AM) and KLEA-FM, Lovington, New Mexico (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4018A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4018A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of KSUN Community Radio (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KSBP-LP, Parachute, Colorado (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4020A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4020A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Home Town Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KWSP-LP, Kerrville, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4021A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4021A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn (the ``Licensees'') for renewal of their license for commercial Station KCNQ(FM), Kernville, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensees apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4022A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4022A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn (the ``Licensees'') for renewal of their license for commercial Station KVLI-FM, Lake Isabella, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensees apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4023A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4023A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Robert J. and Katherine M. Bohn (the ``Licensees'') for renewal of their license for commercial Station KQAB(AM), Lake Isabella, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensees apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-409A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-409A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Friends of KHFM-Ruidoso (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K240CN, Ruidoso, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-412A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-412A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Amarillo Junior College District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KACV-FM, Amarillo, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4134A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4134A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of the American River Folk Society (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KFOK-LP, Georgetown, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-413A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-413A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KYNR(AM), Toppenish, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-414A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-414A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Kashunamiut School District (``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KCUK(FM), Chevak, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-418A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-418A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Community Celebrations (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KCHW-LP, Chewelah, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4194A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4194A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Plymouth State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WPCR-FM, Plymouth, New Hampshire (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4196A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4196A1.pdf
      • application of The Savior's Voice Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WSVV-LP, Center Moriches, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4197A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4197A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Minds of Business Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KMOB-LP, Clearlake, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by, authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4198A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4198A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Assyrian American Civic Club (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KBDG(FM), Turlock, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4301A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4301A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Community Christian Broadcasting (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K294AI, Scandia, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4302A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4302A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Concordia Christian Radio Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K249CU, Concordia, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4303A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4303A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of B & E Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WSLV(AM), Ardmore, Tennessee (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4315A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4315A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Falls Area Community Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WOOL-LP, Bellows Fall, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4316A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4316A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of O-N Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WOON(AM), Woonsocket, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4317A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4317A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Pittsfield Public School Committee (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WTBR-FM, Pittsfield, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4352A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4352A1.pdf
      • on April 3, 2006, by Gene Guthrie (``Guthrie''); and (3) a Petition to Deny the renewal application (``Petition''), filed on March 15, 2006, by Kayleen Johnson (``Johnson''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Sections 73.3539 and 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station and failing to retain all the required documentation in Station KTMP(AM)'s
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4383A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4383A1.pdf
      • from John Fowler, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to Federal Communications Commission, State Historic Preservation Officers, and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (Sep. 21, 2000), regarding delegation of authority for the Section 106 Review of Telecommunications Projects. See Letter to Lee W. Shubert, Esq. and David J. Kaufman, Esq., 20 FCC Rcd 12348 (MB July 20, 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), Note. See also Western Wireless Corporation and WWC Holding Co., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 18 FCC Rcd 10319 (2003) (NAL issued for, inter alia, constructing tower prior to environmental review and where SHPO indicated adverse effect on historic properties) (subsequent history omitted). 16 U.S.C. � 470f. (footnote continued) Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 October 25, 2007 h� k
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4385A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4385A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of KMC Broadcasting, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for commercial Station KHRA(AM), Honolulu, Hawaii (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-442A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-442A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Royce's Electronics, Inc. (``REI'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K281AJ, Moab, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-444A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-444A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Alacca Bible Conference (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K265AP, Lewiston, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4455A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4455A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Cutting Edge Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WEIB(FM) Northampton, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4456A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4456A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Twin City Baptist Temple, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WCMX(AM), Leominster, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4457A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4457A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Newport Musical Arts Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WXHQ-LP, Newport, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4458A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4458A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Donald H. De Rosa, (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WAMF(AM) Fulton, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-445A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-445A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Bruce MacAfee (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K269AV, Tonopah & Goldfield, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-446A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-446A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Newmont Gold Company (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K259AG, Eureka, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-448A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-448A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Tower Communications (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K280DL, Lake Havasu City, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-449A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-449A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Carbon County (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K285AB, Price, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4506A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4506A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Washington County Chamber of Commerce (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WBLQ-LP, Ashaway, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4508A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4508A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Sinclair Telecable, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K238AF, Santa Rosa, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4509A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4509A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of The Lacey Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K262AB, Walkerville, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4510A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4510A1.pdf
      • not fully excuse the violation of Section 301 of the Act. The Station operated after its license expired and without authorization for more than four months. The Licensee was obligated to fully comply with the terms of its Station's license and maintain in effect the Station's authorization. It did not do so. Sanction. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.pdf
      • deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate'' the law. The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules and Section 503(b)(2)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, establish a base forfeiture amount of $32,500 for misrepresentation/lack of candor. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4554A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4554A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of California Black Chamber of Commerce (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KDEE-LP, Sacramento, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4555A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4555A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Scotnmex Broadcasting, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W276AV, Stamford, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4556A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4556A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Aquila Broadcasting Corp. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WAPP-LP, Westhampton, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4557A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4557A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bisiblue, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station WIPS(AM), Ticonderoga, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4624A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4624A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Christian Radio Fellowship (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Fm translator Station W220AX, Ludlow, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4625A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4625A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Christian Family Radio Fellowship (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WFTF(FM), Rutland, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4626A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4626A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of the Trustees of Mount Holyoke College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WHMC(FM), South Hadley, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4628A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4628A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Brookdale Community College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBJB-FM, Lincroft, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-462A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-462A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Christian Action Team, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KNGM(FM), Emporia, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4647A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4647A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Cazenovia College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WITC(FM), Cazenovia, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4648A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4648A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Fitchburg State College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for noncommercial educational Station WXPL(FM), Fitchburg, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4649A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4649A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Nyack College, (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WNYK(FM), Nyack, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-464A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-464A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Hispanic Outreach Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KXOI(AM), Crane, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4650A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4650A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Trinity Media Ltd. (``Trinity'' or the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WLNL(AM), Horseheads, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4667A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4667A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Priority Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W246AQ, Collingswood, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4668A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4668A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Paul Smith's College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial Station WPSA(FM), Paul Smiths, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4669A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4669A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Moundbuilders Christian Radio Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WJHE-LP, Heath, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-466A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-466A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Bowie County Broadcasting Co., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KNBO(AM), New Boston, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4670A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4670A1.pdf
      • The State University of New York College at Oneonta (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WUOW-LP, Oneonta, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-467A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-467A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Faith Pleases God Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KTER(FM), Rudolph, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4729A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4729A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of MM&K of Alva, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KALV(AM), Alva, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4730A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4730A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Western Translators, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K244AY, Imperial, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4731A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4731A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Postville Chamber of Commerce (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KPVL(FM), Postville, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4741A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4741A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Western Translators, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K221CJ, North Platte, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4742A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4742A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Western Translators, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K221CU, Chappell, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4743A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4743A1.pdf
      • captioned application of The Christian Church of Anthony Kansas, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KCCA-LP, Anthony, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-483A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-483A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Caribou County TV Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K272AG, Soda Springs, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-484A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-484A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Eddie Floyd (``Floyd'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K273AF, Carson City, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-485A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-485A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Greater Copper Valley Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K296EL, Glennallen, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4862A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4862A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Good News Translator Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W220CR, Gouverneur, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4863A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4863A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Kane County Special Service District #1 (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K269DQ, Orderville, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4864A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4864A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of St. Luke's Foundation, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WSLX(FM), New Canaan, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, apparently and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4865A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4865A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned applications of Stein Broadcasting Co., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for Stations KXOX(AM) and KXOX-FM, Sweetwater, Texas (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file timely license renewal applications for the Stations, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4870A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4870A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Trinity Church of the Nazarene (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KRCQ(FM), Lompoc, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4871A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4871A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of William Woods University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KWWU-LP, Fulton, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4872A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4872A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of KSOP, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K224BR, Park City, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-488A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-488A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Great Round-Up Cowboy Church (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KGRU-LP, Ellensburg, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-489A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-489A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Pribilof School District Board of Education (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KUHB-FM, St. Paul, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4909A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4909A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Lewiston Christian Radio Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KPLL-LP, Lewiston, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4910A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4910A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Mountain Christian Fellowship (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KMSJ-LP, Mt. Shasta, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4911A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4911A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Puffin Public Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K201AO, Seward, Alaska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4912A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4912A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Santa Cruz Educational Broadcasting Foundation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KFER(FM), Santa Cruz, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-491A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-491A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of B. Ray Carpenter (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K272AQ, St. George, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely and properly file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4959A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4959A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Lane County School District 4J (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K211BP, Florence, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4960A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4960A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of The Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KABR(AM), Alamo Community, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4961A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4961A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Rural Oregon Wireless Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K208DB, Enterprise, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4962A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4962A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Rural Oregon Wireless Television, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K234AD, Enterprise, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5042A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5042A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Anchor Network (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KSEP-LP, Brookings, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5043A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5043A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Whidbey Island Center for the Arts (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KWPA-LP, Coupeville, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5044A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5044A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Susan J. Smith (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of her license for FM translator Station K265BD, Wenatchee, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5045A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5045A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Colby-Sawyer College (``the Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WSCS(FM), New London, New Hampshire, (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain all required documentation in the WSCS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5046A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5046A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Drexel University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WKDU(FM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WKDU(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5047A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5047A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Rockland Public Schools (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WRPS(FM), Rockland, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WRPS(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5048A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5048A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Masconomet Regional School System (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBMT(FM), Boxford, Massachusetts (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5074A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5074A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Northwest Communities Education Center (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KDNA(FM), Yakima, Washington (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5075A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5075A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Priority Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W278AK, Village Green, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5076A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-5076A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Applegate Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KAPL(AM), Phoenix, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-534A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-534A1.pdf
      • of Kalispell Christian Radio Fellowship, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for Station KALS(FM), Kalispell, Montana, and FM Translator Station K257BR, Polson, Montana, (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-53A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-53A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Burgess Broadcasting Company, Inc. (``Burgess'' or the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WGAA(AM), Cedartown, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-541A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-541A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Lake County TV-FM, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K228AG and K280DZ, Leadville, Colorado (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-544A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-544A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Gallatin Valley Witness, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KCMM(FM), Belgrade, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-545A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-545A1.pdf
      • captioned applications of Pikes Peak Community College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K268AR, Pueblo, Colorado and K206BZ, Manitou Springs (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for each Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Stations
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-546A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-546A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Dillon N.P.R. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K288DZ, Dillon, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-547A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-547A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lakota Communications (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KILI(FM), Porcupine, South Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-54A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-54A1.pdf
      • license, but also its unauthorized operation of a radio station for more than one month after the Station's license had expired before it requested an STA for continued operation, pending consideration of its untimely renewal application. 7. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering A&L's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-560A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-560A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Jack W. Ivy, Sr., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WRMG(AM), Red Bay, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-561A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-561A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Muscle Shoals Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WZZA(AM), Tuscumbia, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-562A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-562A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio Station WSNT, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNT-FM, Sandersville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-563A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-563A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Jesse C. Ross and Ernestine A. Ross. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of their license for Station WSAO(AM), Senatobia, Mississippi (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-564A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-564A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cactus Communications, LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KKAY(AM), White Castle, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-565A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-565A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Joel J. Kinlow (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station KAVH(FM), Eudora, Arkansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-566A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-566A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Nicholls State University, (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNSU(FM), Thibodaux, Louisiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-585A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-585A1.pdf
      • it the captioned applications of CARE Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KHGN(FM) and FM Translator Station K220CN, Kirksville, Missouri (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-586A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-586A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Richard P. Marburger (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station W232AI, Niles, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-588A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-588A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wayne Kowalski (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W251AD, Alpena, Michigan (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-589A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-589A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Centerville City Schools Board of Education (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WCWT-FM, Centerville, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-590A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-590A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Heidelberg College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WHEI(FM), Tiffin, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-591A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-591A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lake Superior State University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WLSO(FM), Sault Sainte Marie (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-592A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-592A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Victory & Power Ministries (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WPFC(AM), Baton Rouge, Lousiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-593A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-593A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Hope College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WTHS(FM), Holland, Michigan, (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-612A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-612A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Ralla Broadcasting Company, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WCAZ(AM), Carthage, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-613A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-613A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Public Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WOJB(FM), Reserve, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-614A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-614A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Faith Fellowship Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WJHV-LP, Fairbury, Illinois (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-615A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-615A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of TEA-VISZ, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W272AY, Park Falls, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-616A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-616A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Living Word Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W232AR, Marshfield, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-619A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-619A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Calvary Chapel (Church) of Menomonie (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WRJF-LP, Menomonie, Wisconsin (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-621A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-621A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Alacca Bible Conference, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K213BN, Orofino, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-622A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-622A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Alacca Bible Conference (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K215AB, Kamiah, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-623A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-623A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of La Promesa Foundation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K217CM, Clayton, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-625A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-625A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K220AE, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-626A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-626A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K257DH, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-627A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-627A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K265AV, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-629A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-629A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Boundary County TV Translator District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its License for FM Translator Station K272AR, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-631A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-631A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of First IV Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KGAF(AM), Gainesville, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-632A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-632A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Sam Houston State University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KSHU(FM), Huntsville, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-633A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-633A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Texas Southern University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KTSU(FM), Houston, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-634A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-634A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of West Texas A&M University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KWTS(FM), Canyon, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-635A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-635A1.pdf
      • Biblical Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KFFF(AM), Boone, Iowa, formerly, KFGQ(AM) and Station KFFF-FM, Boone, Iowa, formerly, KFGO-FM (collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the KFFF(AM) and KFFF-FM public inspection files. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-645A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-645A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wennes Communications Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KVIK(FM), Decorah, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-646A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-646A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Central University of Iowa Central College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KCUI(FM), Pella, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-647A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-647A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Grinnell College Trustees of Iowa (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KDIC(FM), Grinnell, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-648A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-648A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wennes Communications Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KHPP(AM), Waukon, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-649A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-649A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Wennes Communications Stations, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNEI-FM, Waukon, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-650A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-650A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Ritenour Consolidated School District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KRHS(FM), Overland, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-652A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-652A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of the Board of Regents, Northwest Missouri State University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KRNW(FM), Chillicothe, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-653A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-653A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cornell College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KRNL-FM, Mount Vernon, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-660A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-660A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of J. Doering Communications (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K252CQ, Northern Apple Valley, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-661A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-661A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Davis Community Television (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KDRT-LP, Davis, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-662A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-662A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of River Delta Unified School District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KRVH(FM), Rio Vista, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-663A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-663A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Buena Park School District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KBPK(FM), Buena Park, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-664A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-664A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Bruce Macafee (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station K261AY, Bridgeport, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-665A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-665A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of San Juan Unified School District (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KYDS(FM), Sacramento, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-666A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-666A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of San Rafael High School (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KSRH, San Rafael, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-670A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-670A1.pdf
      • Good News Radio (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K205BH, Victorville, California, K201AR, Banning, California, and K209AK, Palm Springs, California, (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for each of the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-682A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-682A1.pdf
      • Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K220BW, Kellogg, Etc., Idaho, K269DU, Sandpoint, Idaho, and K220BX, Coeur D'Alene, Idaho (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-683A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-683A1.pdf
      • of Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM Translator Stations K242AC, K247AC, and K262AA, all licensed to Bagdad, Arizona (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-684A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-684A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Monty C. Stratton (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM Translator Station K244DU, St. George, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-685A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-685A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Newmont Gold Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K253AC, Eureka, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-686A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-686A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Christian Radio Translator Association/Salmon, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K257DJ, Salmon, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-687A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-687A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Kamiak Butte Translator Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K237CO, Moscow, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-688A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-688A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Uintah County (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K257AA, Vernal, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-697A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-697A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Carpenter Translator Group (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station DK299AM, Carpenter, South Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-698A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-698A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Boulder TV Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K296AN, Boulder, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-699A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-699A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Colby Community College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KTCC(FM), Colby, Kansas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-700A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-700A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Covenant Life Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KLGB-LP, Enid, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-702A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-702A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of La Tremenda Radio Mexico, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KZUE(AM), El Reno, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-703A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-703A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of New Castle Broadcasting Service, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WHHC-LP, New Castle, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-704A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-704A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Friends of Christian Radio (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K228DI, Sidney, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-705A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-705A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Top O' Texas Educational Broadcasting Foundation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K202AG, Elk City, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-706A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-706A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Christian Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KCMI(FM), Terrytown, Nebraska (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-707A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-707A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Big Sky Owners Association, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257AE, West Fork, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-708A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-708A1.pdf
      • application of Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K201FP, Arapaho, and K216FR, Clinton, Oklahoma (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-745A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-745A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Lewis and Clark Translator Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K288EU, Lewiston and Clark, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-746A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-746A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of American Asset Management, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KHOB(AM), Hobbs, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-747A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-747A1.pdf
      • captioned application of Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KRMH(FM), Red Mesa, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-748A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-748A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Black Hill Christian Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K292DN, Newcastle, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-749A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-749A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Luna County Broadcasting Company (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KDEM(FM), Deming, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-750A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-750A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Zuni Communications Authority (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KSHI(FM), Zuni, New Mexico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-751A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-751A1.pdf
      • Association (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations K296AQ and K292AR, Soda Springs, Idaho and FM translator Station K288AS, Bancroft, Idaho (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-773A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-773A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Northwestern College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K232BC, Mankato, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-774A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-774A1.pdf
      • license for noncommercial educational Station KOTO(FM), Telluride, Colorado; and FM Translator Stations K207AS, Pandora, Colorado; K207AT, Norwood, Colorado; K288BM, Placerville, Colorado, and K207AU, Ophir, Colorado (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for each of the Stations. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-775A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-775A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Independent School District #283 (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KDXL(FM), St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-776A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-776A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Brigham Young University - Idaho (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K220GV, West Yellowstone, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-777A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-777A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Range Paging, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K280AT, Ely, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-778A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-778A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of The Lake Hill Translator Group (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K264AG, Dillon, Colorado (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-779A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-779A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of North Fork Christian Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K219AH, Paonia & Hotchkiss, Colorado (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-781A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-781A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Swan Hill T.V., Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K216BE, Ferndale, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-782A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-782A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Jefferson County Disaster & Emergency Services (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KESW-LP, Whitehall, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-788A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-788A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Perry Broadcasting Systems (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBSG(AM), Lajas, Puerto Rico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-789A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-789A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Mark Hellinger (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WABV(AM), Abbeville, South Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-790A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-790A1.pdf
      • of Chapel of the Holy Spirit Church and Bible College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WKCL(FM), Ladson, South Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-791A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-791A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Communications Systems, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WFMI(FM), Southern Shores, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-792A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-792A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Tri-County Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WPFL(FM), Century, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-793A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-793A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of John Reynolds (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W267AD, Bryson City, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-794A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-794A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Manati Radio Corp. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WMNT(AM), Manati, Puerto Rico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-795A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-795A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Faith Enterprises, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WZOO(AM), Asheboro, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by engaging in the unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-796A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-796A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Synewave Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WUCR-LP, Lake Butler, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-797A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-797A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned applications of Landmark Baptist Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its licenses for Stations WLVF(AM) and WLVF-FM, Haines City, Florida (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-856A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-856A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Radio Station WSNT, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSNT(AM), Sandersville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-857A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-857A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Piedmont Radio Co. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WPID(AM), Piedmont, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-858A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-858A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Barnesville Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBAF(AM), Barnesville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-859A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-859A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Stocks Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WFHK(AM), Pell City, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-860A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-860A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of The University of Georgia (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WUOG(FM), Athens, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-861A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-861A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Powerhouse of Deliverance Church, Inc., (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WGML(AM), Hinesville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-887A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-887A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Raven Ridge Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W221AR, Coshocton, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-889A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-889A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Little Miami Local Schools (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WLMH(FM), Morrow, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-890A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-890A1.pdf
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Melodynamic Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for WCER(AM), Canton, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-891A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-891A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Oberlin College Student Network, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WOBC-FM, Oberlin, Ohio (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-917A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-917A1.pdf
      • 1. The Commission has before it the captioned application of Elenbaas Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KMZK(AM), Billings, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-918A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-918A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Media Associates, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KBJM(AM), Lemmon, South Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-919A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-919A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Gallatin Valley Witness, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KGVW(AM), Belgrade, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-920A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-920A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Schweitzer Media, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KNDC(AM), Hettinger, North Dakota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-921A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-921A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Thompson Falls TV District (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K280BE, Thompson Falls, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-922A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-922A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Big Sky Owners Association, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257AE, West Fork, Montana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-923A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-923A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Family Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K257CI, Decorah, Iowa (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-924A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-924A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Rolla Chinese Christian Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station KJTR-LP, Rolla, Missouri (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-106A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-106A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Widener University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WDNR(FM), Chester, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-107A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-107A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Louis J. Maierhofer (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station W276AS, Martinsburg, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-108A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-108A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of WDAC Radio Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W280CQ, Shillington, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1091A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1091A1.pdf
      • before us a June 18, 2007, Informal Objection (``Objection'') filed jointly by Gary E. Burns (``Burns'') and 3 Daughters Media, Inc. (``3 Daughters'' and collectively, the ``Objectors''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we grant in part and deny in part the Objection, conclude that Centennial Licensing II is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), and grant the Applications as conditioned herein. II.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1092A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1092A1.pdf
      • (``Christian Voice''), licensee of formerly noncommercial educational television Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, for its willful and repeated broadcast of advertisements over the station, in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 73.503(d) of the Commission's rules. We take this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). II. BACKGROUND 2. This case arises from a complaint filed with the Commission in September 2003, alleging that then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM) broadcast prohibited underwriting announcements during the month of August 2003. In April 2004, after the complaint had been filed, but before the Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') had inquired into this matter, Christian Voice sought to modify its station's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1096A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1096A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Sunflower Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for commercial Station KINO(AM), Winslow, Arizona (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1097A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1097A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Snow College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station KAGJ(FM), Ephraim, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1098A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1098A1.pdf
      • for renewal of its licenses for FM translator Stations W253AF, Bennington, Vermont ,W242AL, Buskirk, New York, W288BF, Troy, New York, and W289AL, Troy, New York (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Stations, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-109A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-109A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Timber Ridge Ministries, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W215AA, Millersburg, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-110A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-110A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of WDAC Radio Company (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM translator Station W280CP, Wagontown, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1145A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1145A1.pdf
      • ``minor violation'' for which the Commission in past cases has merely issued an ``admonishment.'' In addition, SCC argues that it is entitled to an admonishment rather than a forfeiture based on its record of overall compliance. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1146A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1146A1.pdf
      • ``minor violation'' for which the Commission in past cases has merely issued an ``admonishment.'' In addition, SCC argues that it is entitled to an admonishment rather than a forfeiture based on its record of overall compliance. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1200A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1200A1.pdf
      • several weeks later. While Licensee does not claim inability to pay, it states that payment of the forfeiture will come at the expense of expenditures necessary to operate the Station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We have
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1233A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1233A1.pdf
      • file, including quarterly issues/programs lists. We determine that DBC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules based on its admission that issues/programs lists were purged and that these lists could not be recreated. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining DBC's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1415A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1415A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WBUQ(FM), Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1419A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1419A1.pdf
      • that time period. It further notes that the Station's operating budget is $4,000, a substantial portion of which was used to repair a remote transmitter that was hit by lightning. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1420A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1420A1.pdf
      • several weeks later. While Licensee does not claim inability to pay, it states that payment of the forfeiture will come at the expense of expenditures necessary to operate the Station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1478A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1478A1.pdf
      • regarding the school's financial condition and the station's budget, the Commission canceled the licensee's forfeiture based on financial hardship. Licensee asserts these reasons, in addition to its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules, warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1479A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1479A1.pdf
      • as of August 20, 2002. Licensee further asserts that it is essentially being fined twice for the same violation, since the Stations simulcast some of the same programming. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amounts proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1576A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1576A1.pdf
      • Application. However, the Bureau finds that Riverside did, in fact, demonstrate a lack of candor on the Modification Application in violation of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by the authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Riverside is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). II. BACKGROUND Riverside originally submitted an application to the Commission for a new NCE FM station in Newark, Ohio, on November
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1655A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1655A1.pdf
      • Licensee claims that imposing a forfeiture against licensees that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1656A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1656A1.pdf
      • to the fact that Licensee has a ``perilously thin undesignated fund balanced of only approximately one percent (1%) of total expenses ... leaving essentially no room for error.'' Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1657A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1657A1.pdf
      • Licensee claims that imposing a forfeiture against licensees that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1662A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1662A1.pdf
      • license renewal application would have been considered timely filed. In the alternative, Licensee argues that the forfeiture amount be significantly reduced based on its ``good faith and diligence.'' License asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1738A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1738A1.pdf
      • Licensee claims that imposing a forfeiture against licensees that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1739A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1739A1.pdf
      • that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled or reduced on the ground of its inability to pay, and submits copies of its 2001, 2002, and 2003 federal income tax returns to establish its inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Tol-Tol's Request, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. 6.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1740A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1740A1.pdf
      • to the main menu and click on "File Form." Licensee states that it then followed the staff member's instructions, completed the forms in the correct order, and made certain that it clicked on "File Form." DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In examining Licensee's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1844A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1844A1.pdf
      • Application. However, the Bureau finds that MSG failed to submit all of the required information on the Application detailing a ``complete and final understanding'' between the licensee and assignee. Therefore, in this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by the authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Mejia and MSG are each apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000). II. BACKGROUND Mejia and MSG submitted the Application on August 20, 2007. Pursuant to the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1849A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1849A1.pdf
      • omission of the list. Furthermore, the proper proceeding to address Neely's arguments regarding the significance of the issues/programs lists is a rulemaking proceeding, not the results of an informal survey submitted in the context of his Response. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering Neely's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1859A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1859A1.pdf
      • 73.3526 of the Rules based on its admission that the quarterly issues and programs lists for the second and third quarters of 2000 and the third and fourth quarters of 2001 were missing from its public file. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering Entercom's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2158A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2158A1.pdf
      • renewal of WJYK(AM)'s license, but also its unauthorized operation of a radio station for 10 weeks after the Station's license had expired before it obtained an STA for continued operation, pending consideration of its untimely renewal application. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering WMB's request, the statute, the rule, and our policy require that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2159A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2159A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Michael G. Lewis (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for FM translator Station K296DW, Lone Pine, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2164A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2164A1.pdf
      • are in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious in nature. Licensee also states that a 25% reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2165A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2165A1.pdf
      • are in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious in nature. Licensee also states that a 25% reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2237A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2237A1.pdf
      • Commission has assessed for similar violations, in contravention of Melody Music. Huerta also maintains that the forfeiture should be reduced because of Huerta's voluntary disclosure of the public file violations and his prior record of compliance with the Commission's rules. II. DISCUSSION. The forfeiture amounts proposed in this case were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 73.3539
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2244A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2244A1.pdf
      • it was filed 10 weeks after WBLT(AM)'s license had expired. Despite WBLT's assertion that it neither "ignored nor neglected its renewal obligation," we find that its violation of Section 73.3539 of the Rules was willful and repeated. As noted in the NAL, the proposed forfeiture amount in this case was determined in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In considering WBLT's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Bureau take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2315A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2315A1.pdf
      • No. MB200841410030 FRN: 0016335481 File No. BALH-20070820AGE FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: October 18, 2008 Released: October 20, 2008 By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) each to Luis A. Mejia (``Mejia'') and MSG Radio, Inc. (``MSG'') for their willful violation of Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') by failing to provide required information on the above-captioned application (``Application'') for the assignment of license of station WIAC-FM, San Juan, Puerto Rico (``Station'') from Mejia to MSG. On August 5, 2008, the Media Bureau (``Bureau'') issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) each to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2391A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2391A1.pdf
      • the Commission's Indecency Rules as well as the investigation by the Media Bureau considering the allegations in the informal objections to the renewal of Station WQAM(AM). ``Investigations and Hearings Division'' means the Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, acting on behalf of the Enforcement Bureau. ``NAL'' means Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, including that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), Miami, Florida (FCC 04-225), released November 23, 2004. ``Order'' or ``Adopting Order'' means an Order adopted by the Bureaus adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion or modification. ``Parties'' means Beasley and the Bureaus. ``Rules'' means the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2426A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2426A1.pdf
      • should be reduced or cancelled since co-owned stations were in compliance with the Rules; that its corrective actions warrant a reduction; and that a reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Sun Valley
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2427A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2427A1.pdf
      • should be reduced or cancelled since co-owned stations were in compliance with the Rules; that its corrective actions warrant a reduction; and that a reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Sun Valley
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2444A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2444A1.pdf
      • assessed against it is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious in nature; and that a reduction in the forfeiture amount is warranted based on its voluntary disclosure of the public file deficiencies. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Franklin College
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2445A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2445A1.pdf
      • because the student volunteers had graduated and left the campus. Lastly, in support of its financial hardship arguments, Licensee submits an Exhibit stating its operating budget for years 2002-2005, along with the salaries of its General Managers during this time period. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2477A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2477A1.pdf
      • 22, 2004, but the completed application never appeared in the Commission's database. The error was later realized by the proposed assignee of the licenses and brought to Jason's attention, after which Jason, on August 26, 2004, correctly filed its renewal applications. DISCUSSION The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Jason's Request, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. 6.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2508A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2508A1.pdf
      • Iris argues that it did keep records of all its programming, albeit not in the form required by Section 73.3527 of the Rules, and that, in light of the circumstances here, the forfeiture amount is excessive. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Glen Iris's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2626A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2626A1.pdf
      • for public inspection. Furthermore, Cumulus has previously certified that except for the 4th quarter 1998 (just after it became licensee) it complied with Section 73.3526 of the Commission's Rules concerning all other quarterly issues/ programs lists. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Cumulus's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2676A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2676A1.pdf
      • its rivals to receive a dispositive preference. SOU is incorrect. The standards adopted to implement Section 307(b) in the context of mutually exclusive applications for noncommercial educational FM stations in the reserved band have no bearing in this proceeding. See Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7386 (2000). 47 C.F.R. � 1.80 establishes a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form or information. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(a)(4). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106(n) (``without special order of the Commission, the filing of a petition for reconsideration will not excuse any person from complying with any decision, order, or requirement of the Commission . . . .'');
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2727A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2727A1.pdf
      • its Request, Saga argued that (1) the violations were not willful or repeated; (2) it is contrary to the public interest to assess a forfeiture for voluntary, self-reported violations; and (3) Commission precedent in similar circumstances is to admonish the licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Saga does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-297A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-297A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Peak Communications, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KQBE(FM), Ellensburg, Washington (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the KQBE(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-365A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-365A1.pdf
      • ``minor violation'' for which the Commission in past cases has merely issued an ``admonishment.'' In addition, SCC argues that it is entitled to an admonishment rather than a forfeiture based on its record of overall compliance. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining SCC's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-390A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-390A1.pdf
      • ``Licensee'') for renewal of its licenses for Class D noncommercial educational Station WFAR(FM) and FM translator Station W250AA, Danbury, Connecticut (individually, the ``Station'' and collectively, the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Stations, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-481A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-481A1.pdf
      • captioned application of the School District of Haverford Township (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Class D noncommercial educational Station WHHS(FM), Havertown, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-494A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-494A1.pdf
      • WGYV(AM), Greenville, Alabama (the ``Station''); and (2) the Informal Objection (the ``Objection'') to the application filed on June 23, 2004, by Great Eastern Media Broadcasters, LLC (``GEMB''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') by the Commission by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-495A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-495A1.pdf
      • to provide the public with timely, pertinent, information throughout the license period. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules, each state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. For purposes of Section 503(b) of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent to violate
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-534A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-534A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of the Long Pond Baptist Church (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WTBH(FM), Chiefland, Florida (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-596A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-596A1.pdf
      • captioned application of Southern Rhode Island Public Radio Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WKIV(FM), Westerly, Rhode Island (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-625A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-625A1.pdf
      • file, including quarterly issues/programs lists. We determine that DBC willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526(e)(12) of the Rules based on its admission that issues/programs lists were purged and that these lists could not be recreated. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining DBC's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-788A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-788A1.pdf
      • INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of James Rouse (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for Station WTOW(AM), Washington, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-789A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-789A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of The Minority Voice, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WOOW(AM), Greenville, North Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-883A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-883A1.pdf
      • the Assemblies of God in American Samoa (``District Council'') on June 5, 2006; and an Opposition to the Petition file by the Licensee on July 10, 2006. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1350 of the Rules, by engaging in operation of the Station at an unauthorized site; and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1740 of the Rules, by leaving the Station
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-970A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-970A1.pdf
      • license term. Saga filed an Opposition to Informal Objection on June 10, 2004, and AHM filed a Reply to Opposition to Informal Objection on June 21, 2004. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Saga apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1304 of Title 18 of the United States Code (the ``Lottery Statute'') and Section 73.1211(a) of the Rules. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1058A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1058A1.pdf
      • between 2003 and 2005. In response, Valley Air filed the subject Request. In its Request, Valley Air asserts that payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship, and claims that this reason warrants a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Valley Air
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1059A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1059A1.pdf
      • of the proposed forfeiture would cause it financial hardship. Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1083A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1083A1.pdf
      • It claims that the former licensee, RealRadio, is no longer associated with the Station, and that to impose a forfeiture would only harm innocent creditors of the bankrupt former licensee. Trustee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1091A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1091A1.pdf
      • expired; (3) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules; and (4) payment of the forfeiture would severely restrict its ability to operate the Stations. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1092A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1092A1.pdf
      • had expired; (3) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules; and (4) payment of the forfeiture would severely restrict its ability to operate the Stations. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1100A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1100A1.pdf
      • the violation; and (3) the forfeiture amount is ``excessive.'' Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1243A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1243A1.pdf
      • inadvertent; (2) it voluntarily disclosed the violation; (3) the forfeiture amount would create a ``terrible financial burden'' on the Station; and (4) it has a history of compliance. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1282A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1282A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Cobra Broadcasting Co., LLC (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KBRA(FM), Freer, Texas (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1283A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1283A1.pdf
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, and (2) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1284A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1284A1.pdf
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1330A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1330A1.pdf
      • its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to properly file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) payment of the forfeiture would cause it financial hardship. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1366A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1366A1.pdf
      • was thus a harmless mistake; and that the forfeiture amount should be reduced or cancelled to take into account its history of overall compliance with the Commission's Rules. Urban Radio also suggests that the forfeiture amount inappropriately penalizes a minority-owned station. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We reject
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1367A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1367A1.pdf
      • for the Station. In his Letter, Reynolds states that his failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional and that it would be a financial hardship for him to pay the forfeiture. Therefore, he argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Reynolds does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1394A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1394A1.pdf
      • of its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to file properly the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-140A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-140A1.pdf
      • the fact that, by its admission, twelve issues/programs lists were missing from the Station's public inspection file. In response, Licensee filed the subject Request, asserting that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-142A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-142A1.pdf
      • stations; and (2) the forfeiture amount assessed against it is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to or more serious than Licensee's violation. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-148A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-148A1.pdf
      • such grants, and limit its ability to provide public service programming. Licensee further asserts that the Station has taken remedial steps to ensure future compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1704A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1704A1.pdf
      • its Request, Bowie states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; and (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Bowie asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Bowie does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1740A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1740A1.pdf
      • \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\super 1}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ab\af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 In}{\rtlch\fcs1 \ab\af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs22 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs22 Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2 "Rules"),}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2\super 2}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2 by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2\super 3}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\expnd0\expndtw2 we find }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1741A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1741A1.pdf
      • in August of 2002. The station was out of business for several months. Needless to say, the station was unable to produce any income and there was some confusion during that time as to whether the station would ever be reestablished.'' DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Imani does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1830A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1830A1.pdf
      • expiration date of the Station's license, rather than merely before the expiration date. Towle states that this reason, together with his financial hardship and the Station's history of rebroadcasting its primary station to the area, warrants cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Towle does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-190A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-190A1.pdf
      • its Request, Saga argues that: (1) the violations were not willful or repeated; (2) it is contrary to the public interest to assess a forfeiture for voluntary, self-reported violations; and (3) Commission precedent in similar circumstances is to admonish the licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Saga does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-191A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-191A1.pdf
      • its Request, Saga argues that: (1) the violations were not willful or repeated; (2) it is contrary to the public interest to assess a forfeiture for voluntary, self-reported violations; and (3) Commission precedent in similar circumstances is to admonish the licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Saga does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-192A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-192A1.pdf
      • captioned application of the American Institute for Jewish Education (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WMDI-LP, Lakewood, New Jersey (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1996A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1996A1.pdf
      • 2003 filing deadline, but did so on paper, not electronically. MVB states that because it was unaware of the electronic filing requirement, the violation was not willful. Similarly, MVB states that it did not fail to file the "required form," but merely filed it ``untimely.'' MVB also asserts that the NAL was not issued within the time specified in Section 1.80(c) of the Rules. Specifically, MVB states that the violation occurred as of December 1, 2003, the date the application was required to be filed, and that the December 6, 2006, NAL was not issued within one year of the violation or "prior to the date of commencement of the current license term. . .", as provided by Section 1.80(c). For
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2066A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2066A1.pdf
      • file renewal applications for the Stations. In its Statement, Morgan County Broadcasting states that it has an overall history of compliance with the Rules and is entitled to a reduction of the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We reject
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2067A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2067A1.pdf
      • application was unintentional and that it would be a financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture. It also argues that the staff should consider Columbia City's status as a non-profit governmental entity. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, the record of compliance, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Columbia City does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2077A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2077A1.pdf
      • timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture, and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2078A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2078A1.pdf
      • the Station. In response, Licensee filed the subject Request. In support of its Request, Licensee states that its failure to properly file the renewal application was inadvertent, and asserts that this reason warrants a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2153A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2153A1.pdf
      • states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional and that it would be a financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. TEA-VISZ does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2154A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2154A1.pdf
      • authorization. In the Letter, BSOA states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional and was caused by a ``significant'' personnel turnover at the time the renewal filing was due. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. BSOA does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2163A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2163A1.pdf
      • Licensee advances several arguments why the $14,000 forfeiture amount proposed in this case was excessive, including, among others, that it is inconsistent with more recent forfeitures assessed against translators. It asserts that these reasons warrant a reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2176A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2176A1.pdf
      • I. INTRODUCTION The Commission has before it the captioned application of Linfield College (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station KSLC(FM), McMinnville, Oregon (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3527 of the Rules by failing to retain all required documentation in the KSLC(FM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2177A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2177A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Auburn Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSFW(AM), Seneca Falls, New York (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WSFW(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2178A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2178A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Auburn Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WAUB(AM), Auburn, New York (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WAUB(AM) public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2179A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2179A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lake Country Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WNYR-FM, Waterloo, New York (the Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3526 of the Rules, by failing to retain required documentation in the WNYR-FM public inspection file. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2197A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2197A1.pdf
      • Meadowland explains that the delay in its filing was inadvertent, occasioned by the severe health problems and hospitalization of its chief engineer and liaison, David Morris. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Meadowland does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2202A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2202A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file a required form. The guidelines also specify a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for construction and/or operation without an instrument of authorization for the service. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2227A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2227A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Elmira College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WECW(FM), Elmira, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2228A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2228A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of Lusk TV Club (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K276AW, Lusk, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2229A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2229A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Universal Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KQLO(AM), Sun Valley, Nevada (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2230A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2230A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Kath Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K244AR, Pine Bluffs, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2231A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2231A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Corning Community College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for noncommercial educational Station WCEB(FM), Corning, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2233A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2233A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Connecticut River Educational Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for low power FM Station WWBW-LP, Higganum, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2304A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2304A1.pdf
      • file the renewal applications because he was hospitalized shortly before the application filing deadline, and (2) has a history of compliance with the Rules. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-236A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-236A1.pdf
      • JBU's offense. In its Amendment, JBU attributed the violation to the fact that ``the station is a student-staffed educational radio station [and] during the license period, several different faculty members and students were responsible for maintaining the station's local public file. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. JBU's decision
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2380A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2380A1.pdf
      • to timely file the renewal applications was unintentional, and (2) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. Calvary asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Calvary does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2382A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2382A1.pdf
      • states that his violation of Sections 73.3539 of the Rules and 301 of the Act was not intentional, and that he is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2439A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2439A1.pdf
      • service. Licensee states that these are ``first-time'' violations and that he does not have the ability to pay. Licensee also states that all of the statutory mitigating factors warranting a reduction of the proposed forfeiture are applicable in this case. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2455A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2455A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Southern Broadcasting Corporation (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WENA(AM), Yauco, Puerto Rico (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2469A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2469A1.pdf
      • on January 12, 2009 (the ``Petition to Deny''). Finally, we have before us an application for minor modification of the facilities of Station WOLL(FM) (the ``Modification Application''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, for the reasons stated below, we: (1) deny the informal objection and grant the Wellington Application; (2) grant the Petition for Reconsideration directed to the Juno Beach Application to the extent necessary to consider the arguments raised against
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-251A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-251A1.pdf
      • of the Station; and (2) the forfeiture amount assessed against it is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for violations similar to Citadel's violations. Citadel asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Citadel's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2520A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2520A1.pdf
      • is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Corning submits financial statements for calendar years 2005-2008, prepared by an independent auditor, a firm of certified public accountants. Corning asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Corning does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2521A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2521A1.pdf
      • the Station operates essentially as an extracurricular activity and it has a ``very minimal budget.'' Licensee also states that it has operated in the public interest for nearly 30 years and it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2522A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2522A1.pdf
      • states that it has a history of compliance with the Rules, and that the forfeiture of $10,000 per station is vastly disproportionate to those assessed to small religious broadcasters for more serious violations, citing Faith Christian Music Broadcast Ministries, Inc. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. First, Licensee
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2540A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2540A1.pdf
      • from the cases cited in the NAL; (2) the Commission staff failed to explain the imposition of a higher forfeiture than was issued in recent cases citing similar rule violations, and (3) it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2546A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2546A1.pdf
      • (1) inadvertent because it thought it had been properly filed, and (2) may have been the result of technical difficulties in the Commission's electronic filing system, known as CDBS. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2592A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2592A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Life At Its Best, Inc. (the "Licensee") for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KLBG-LP, Glide, Oregon (the "Station"). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules"), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station (the ``Application''), and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2627A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2627A1.pdf
      • 2008, Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alaska Educational Radio System, Inc. must either resume operations from its authorized Kasilof site or file an appropriate request for silent authority within thirty days of the release date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Alaska Educational Radio System, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act and Section 73.1350 of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-403A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-403A1.pdf
      • objections filed against the Application by Dee Schademann on September 21, 2005 (the ``Schademann Objection''), and by Joshua C. Powers on September 26, 2005 (the ``Powers Objection''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file a license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we deny the Schademann
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-404A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-404A1.pdf
      • of its request, it submits copies of its 2001, 2002 and 2003 Federal tax returns. The returns show: (a) for 2001, a loss of $ 5,332 on gross receipts of $11,879, (b) for 2002, an income of $1,622 on gross receipts of $ 18,786, and (c) for 2003, a loss of $ 7,009 on gross receipts of $15,343. Discussion Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules states that ``in determining the amount of forfeiture penalty, the Commission . . . will take into account . . . ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' In general, the Commission looks to gross revenues as the principal factor in determining inability to pay. A station's lack of profitability over a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-433A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-433A1.pdf
      • the needs and interests of their local communities. In this regard, where lapses occur in maintaining the public file, neither the negligent acts or omissions of station employees or agents, nor the subsequent remedial actions undertaken by the licensee, excuse or nullify a licensee's rule violation.'' Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules state that persons who willfully or repeatedly fail to comply with the provisions of the Act or the Rules are liable for forfeiture penalties. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for public file violations. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, if any, in the instant
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-478A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-478A1.pdf
      • that voluntarily disclose their Rule violations is contrary to the public interest because it will discourage licensees from ``com[ing] clean'' with the Commission. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture and the imposition of an admonishment. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-488A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-488A1.pdf
      • ``chilling effect on [its] ability to continue full-time operations.'' Finally, Licensee asserts that a forfeiture reduction is warranted because of its history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-49A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-49A1.pdf
      • calls to action. The foregoing references appear to exceed the licensee's discretion under Xavier because each, in the context presented, refers either to specific qualities or attributes of the respective underwriters that are not necessarily possessed by competitors, or otherwise contain prohibited price information or other language of inducement. B. Proposed Forfeiture 9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's rules both state that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or Commission orders shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base forfeiture amount of $2,000 for violation of the enhanced underwriting requirements. The Forfeiture Policy Statement also provides that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-550A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-550A1.pdf
      • Commission's public file Rules and implemented new measures to ensure future compliance; and (4) payment of the proposed forfeiture would be an extreme financial hardship on the Station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-551A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-551A1.pdf
      • the proposed forfeiture would be ``devastating,'' especially when coupled with the fact that Licensee is also facing a possible forefeiture for its public file deficiencies at another station. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-571A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-571A1.pdf
      • amount assessed against KUOA is in excess of those imposed on other licensees for similar violations; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. For these reasons, KUOA contends, a reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted. DISCUSSION 5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining KUOA's Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-590A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-590A1.pdf
      • it contends, must be considered a "good faith mistake." In this regard, Licensee attributes the basis of its "belief" on the Commission's "lack of clarity" or failure to explain the definition of "nonexempt," as recited in section 73.3527(e)(8) of the rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. It is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-609A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-609A1.pdf
      • forfeiture is disproportionate to forfeitures issued in similar or more egregious cases; and (3) it voluntarily disclosed its public file deficiencies and undertook procedures to prevent future violations. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a reduction of the assessed forfeiture to $3,000. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-652A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-652A1.pdf
      • of attracting more listeners. It states that its annual costs exceed its revenues, and as an example, refers to its 2004 federal tax return, which shows that its total revenue was $279,041, and that it operated at a deficit of $26,271. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. First, we
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-659A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-659A1.pdf
      • Tennessee until the renewal deadline for the Station had already passed. Licensee claims that this mistake was inadvertent and did not constitute a willful violation of the Rules. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-660A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-660A1.pdf
      • further conclude that it is appropriate to admonish White Park with respect to its violations of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules for making environmental certifications in the Applications without having a reasonable basis for believing they were correct. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that White Park Broadcasting, Inc., is hereby ADMONISHED for its apparent willful violations of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED IT IS ORDERED, that the Informal Objections filed by Legend Communications of Wyoming, LLC, ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and ARE DENIED in all other respects. 35. IT IS
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-734A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-734A1.pdf
      • immediately took corrective action upon learning that the Station license had expired. Finally, Licensee asserts that it is a noncommercial educational station that operates on a limited budget. License asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-795A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-795A1.pdf
      • the forfeitures exceed the amount assessed against other licensees that have committed similar violations of the Rules; and (3) Licensee lacks the financial resources to pay the forfeitures. Licensee asserts these reasons warrant a reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeitures. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-829A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-829A1.pdf
      • to properly file the Application: (1) was inadvertent because Lankford thought it had been properly filed, and (2) may have been the result of technical difficulties in CDBS. Lankford asserts these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Lankford first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1029A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1029A1.pdf
      • file was inadvertent; (2) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules; and (3) it will soon lose the right to operate the Station because of the pending construction of a full-service noncommercial educational (``NCE'') station in the area. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1042A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1042A1.pdf
      • reduced because: (1) it would place financial hardship on both the station and his family; and (2) the Station ``is not a `repeat offender' against the FCC and to [his] knowledge [the Station] has never had a complaint filed against'' it. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In his
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1063A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1063A1.pdf
      • to reduce programming or to close the Station. Licensee submits copies of its 2004, 2005, and 2006 federal income tax returns to establish its inability to pay the proposed forfeiture. For these reasons, Licensee argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee requests
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1072A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1072A1.pdf
      • inexperienced in dealing with and unadvised about FCC regulations; and (3) the proposed forfeiture ``would be over twice [Licensee's] overall surplus for the past three years,'' essentially a financial hardship. The Letter also includes notarized profit and loss statements for 2004-06. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1179A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1179A1.pdf
      • 2008. In its Letter, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1196A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1196A1.pdf
      • because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1273A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1273A1.pdf
      • file its application before the deadline was inadvertent; (2) it relied on the erroneous advice of Commission staff; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's rules. For these reasons, CAT argues that the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. First, CAT
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1280A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1280A1.pdf
      • reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1281A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1281A1.pdf
      • after its license expired. In response to the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (``Request'') on February 28, 2007. In its Request, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1282A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1282A1.pdf
      • file its renewal application on a timely basis and that its failure to do so was inadvertent, and (2) is financially unable to pay the assessed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1293A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1293A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Enid Public Radio Association (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KEIF-LP, formerly KUAL-LP, Enid, Oklahoma (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau (``Bureau''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Sections 73.503(d) and 73.811 of the Rules, as well as Section 399B of the Act, by willfully and repeatedly interrupting regular programming with unauthorized commercial announcements and operating at
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-130A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-130A1.pdf
      • the Station. In addition, we have before us an additional minor modification application for the Station, filed by Ethics on October 6, 2008; this application is unopposed. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that Ethics willfully and repeatedly violated Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 73.3540 of the Rules by engaging in an unauthorized transfer of control of the Station beginning in November of 2005. Based on our
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-142A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-142A1.pdf
      • School, Mid-Virginia Broadcasting Corp., and John Brown University, that the forfeiture amount is much higher than those assessed against similarly situated stations, which as here, voluntarily disclosed the issues/programs public file violations, and that Licensee has a previously ``unblemished'' enforcement record. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1449A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1449A1.pdf
      • application. In the STA Request, Licensee explained that he had not previously held an FCC license, was unaware of the renewal requirements, and that the late-filing of the renewal application was inadvertent. Licensee did not submit a response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1555A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1555A1.pdf
      • application of Keene Foursquare Church d/b/a Hope Chapel (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for low power FM (``LPFM'') Station WKHP-LP, Keene, New Hampshire (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1590A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1590A1.pdf
      • excused from liability because: 1) it timely filed a renewal application for the Station, although it did not do so electronically; 2) its failure to properly file the renewal application was not willful; and 3) it is a noncommercial educational broadcaster. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee states
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1591A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1591A1.pdf
      • arguing that its violation of Sections 73.3539 of the Rules and 301 of the Act was not intentional, and that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1605A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1605A1.pdf
      • On October 16, 2007, the Bureau issued a NAL in the amount of five hundred dollars to CCB. CCB submitted a payment of $500 on October 23, 2007, and filed its Letter requesting cancellation of the forfeiture on November 27, 2007. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Letter
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1634A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1634A1.pdf
      • Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1635A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1635A1.pdf
      • 18, 2005; and (2) copies of federal tax returns for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Hawkins asserts that these documents demonstrate that it has ``made every effort to maintain communication with the Commission'' regarding the filing of its renewal application. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Hawkins asserts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1666A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1666A1.pdf
      • hundred and fifty dollars to Licensee. Licensee filed its Statement requesting cancellation of the forfeiture on November 18, 2009, arguing that the failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent and that the proposed forfeiture would be a financial hardship. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee suggests
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1701A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1701A1.pdf
      • its failure to timely file was unintentional; and (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. Living Word asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Living Word
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1759A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1759A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Southern Broadcasting & Investment Co. Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WBTY(FM), Homerville, Georgia (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1760A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1760A1.pdf
      • Broadcasting, Inc. ("W&B"), licensee of Station WASE(FM), Radcliff, Kentucky, a Response to Informal Objection (the ``Response'') filed by Skytower on October 15, 2004, and other related pleadings. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1125 of the Rules by relocating the Station's main studio to two separate locations prior to receiving Commission approval to do so. Based upon our review of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1765A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1765A1.pdf
      • willfully violating Section 73.3539 of the Rules and willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. The Bureau has since learned that Mr. De Rosa passed away. Because Mr. De Rosa is no longer living, we cancel the NAL. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Donald H. De Rosa IS HEREBY CANCELED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Mr. De Rosa assigned the Station to Cram Communications, LLC on November 21, 2007. See File No. BAL-20061109AAQ, granted on November 14, 2007. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3539. 47 U.S.C.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1766A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1766A1.pdf
      • application for the Station, although it did not do so electronically; 2) its failure to properly file the renewal application was not willful; and 3) it did not receive a timely notice from the Commission that it should have filed electronically. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee states
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1767A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1767A1.pdf
      • (2) the penalty imposed is inconsistent with that issued to licensees in similar situations; (3) it voluntarily disclosed its public violation; and (4) it took corrective measures to ensure future compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1768A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1768A1.pdf
      • filed until May 10, 2004, almost six weeks after the Station's license expired. In response to the NAL, Central filed the subject Request stating that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture and requesting that its forfeiture be cancelled. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Central requests
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1769A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1769A1.pdf
      • June 2, 2004. Licensee filed a response to the NAL (``Response'') on April 26, 2007. In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1793A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1793A1.pdf
      • on March 20, 2007. In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1952A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1952A1.pdf
      • untimely filing of the renewal application. Licensee submitted a response (``Response'') to the NAL on January 10, 2008. In its Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced because Licensee has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee notes
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1993A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1993A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of the Department of Communications and Theatre of Mansfield University (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WNTE-FM, Mansfield, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2003A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2003A1.pdf
      • the captioned applications (the ``Renewal Applications'') of Katherine Timmerman Hagler (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of license for FM Translator Stations W285AJ and W296AI, Montgomery, Alabama (the ``Stations''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file timely license renewal applications for the Stations, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2009A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2009A1.pdf
      • Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) his failure to timely file the license renewal application was not willful; and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications of Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 5. Licensee
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2010A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2010A1.pdf
      • has taken steps to develop policies and procedures to ensure that all future filings with the Commission will be done in a timely manner; and (2) it has no operating budget and is, therefore, financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2011A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2011A1.pdf
      • should be excused from liability because: 1) it timely filed a renewal application for the Station, although it did not do so electronically; and 2) its failure to properly file the renewal application was not willful. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee states
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2032A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2032A1.pdf
      • ``completely unaware'' of the deadline for filing the application or the Station's license expiration date. Also, Licensee states that it did not receive notice from the Commission regarding the license renewal due date or the lapse of the license. III. DISCUSSION 4. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. 5. Licensee
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2051A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2051A1.pdf
      • a total of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) -- for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3526 of the Rules. Citadel filed a joint response to each NAL on September 3, 2004, requesting cancellation of each of the proposed forfeitures (``Joint Request''). DISCUSSION 4. The proposed forfeiture amounts in these cases were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining Citadel's Joint Request, Section 503(b) of the Act and the other cited authority require that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2221A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2221A1.pdf
      • Application in the order issuing the NAL. In its Request, Peak asserts that payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship, and asks for a cancellation or substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Peak contends
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2254A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2254A1.pdf
      • Exclusive Group No. 235. The issues involved also affect IJR's pending Crosbytown, Hulldale, and Cuero, Texas, applications (collectively, with the Quemado Application, the ``Applications''). 2. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that IJR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.65 of the Rules, by failing to report changes in relevant information in the Applications. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we grant the Petition in part, conclude that IJR is apparently liable for a monetary forfeiture in the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2260A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2260A1.pdf
      • Bureau has before it the captioned application of Crawford County Community Radio, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station DDWBRO(FM), Marengo, Indiana (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2312A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2312A1.pdf
      • proposed forfeiture would cause it financial hardship due to its limited financial resources, (2) it made a good faith effort to comply with the Rules in a timely manner, and (3) it has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We turn
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2339A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2339A1.pdf
      • that cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted because: (1) his failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause him financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2374A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2374A1.pdf
      • filed a Request for Cancellation or Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture (``Request'') on January 14, 2008. In its Request, Trinity states that cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2385A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2385A1.pdf
      • response to the NAL (``Response''). In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2393A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2393A1.pdf
      • license expiration date, but was not actually filed until March 24, 2005, after the staff had written to Licensee indicating that the Station's license had expired and that (1) all authority to operate the Station was terminated; and (2) the Station's call letters were deleted from the Commission's database. Response at 2-3. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(A). See also Cumulus Licensing LLC, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 4471 (MB 2008) (declining, pursuant to Section 503(b)(6)(A) of the Act, to propose a forfeiture for willful and repeated Rule violations). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2393 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2393 ? @ A ] e u x ... � � � � � � (c)
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2394A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2394A1.pdf
      • the Bureau issued a NAL in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars to FACT. FACT submitted a payment of $250 and filed its Letter requesting cancellation of the forfeiture on November 7, 2007. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Letter
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-260A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-260A1.pdf
      • were ``validated'' by the Bureau's electronic filing system (known as ``CDBS''); therefore, it failed to complete the filing process. It further states that payment of the proposed forfeiture would cause it financial hardship. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-261A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-261A1.pdf
      • failure to timely file the renewal applications was unintentional and caused by its misunderstanding of allegedly ambiguous text in the renewal application Form 303-S and instructions. Therefore, it argues, the forfeiture should be cancelled. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Spokane does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-343A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-343A1.pdf
      • file its renewal application on a timely basis and that its failure to do so was inadvertent, and (2) is financially unable to pay the assessed forfeiture. Fairview asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. Discussion. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Fairview asserts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-344A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-344A1.pdf
      • for Reconsideration of the Proposed Forfeiture (``Petition'') on January 6, 2006. In its Petition, Licensee states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent. Licensee asserts that this reason warrants a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-392A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-392A1.pdf
      • Commission has before it the captioned application of James K. Sharp (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of his license for noncommercial educational Station WDJL(AM), Huntsville, Alabama (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-414A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-414A1.pdf
      • did not file the application until October 4, 2005, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the renewal application. In response to the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (``Letter'') on March 19, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-415A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-415A1.pdf
      • did not file the application until June 30, 2004, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the renewal application. In response to the NAL, Licensee submitted a letter (``Letter'') on March 15, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-432A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-432A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned applications of Escalante City (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM translator Station K237AD, Escalante, Utah (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to timely file license renewal applications for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-440A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-440A1.pdf
      • 16, 2007. In its Request, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it would be a financial hardship for it to pay the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. FCR does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-441A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-441A1.pdf
      • cancellation of the forfeitures is warranted because: (1) it did not ``willfully'' violate the Rules; (2) its staff consists of unpaid volunteers who do not ``have attorneys on retainer'' to advise them; and (3) it is a ``non-commercial, non profit'' entity. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-443A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-443A1.pdf
      • on March 16, 2007. In its Letter, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) it is a non-profit entity. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-541A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-541A1.pdf
      • 2007 (``Response''). In its Response, Northwest seeks reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on its (1) reliance on purportedly incorrect staff advice; (2) good faith efforts to timely file its renewal application; and (3) status as an NCE licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-566A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-566A1.pdf
      • The Commission has before it the captioned application of Westport Board of Education (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WWPT(FM), Westport, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-575A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-575A1.pdf
      • (``Response''). In its Response, Ritenour alleges that its good-faith efforts to timely file the renewal application and its reliance on staff advice with regard to continuing Station operations after its renewal application filing warrant reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-597A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-597A1.pdf
      • continue operating pending consideration of the late-filed renewal application. Licensee explained that the late-filing of the renewal application was simply an oversight on its part. On December 26, 2007, Licensee submitted a letter (``Letter'') requesting reconsideration and waiver of the forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-598A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-598A1.pdf
      • that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was inadvertent, (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship, and (3) Licensee is a non-commercial entity. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-601A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-601A1.pdf
      • (``Letter''), on March 20, 2007. In its Letter, Barnesville Broadcasting asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) its failure to timely file its renewal application was an oversight, and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-603A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-603A1.pdf
      • process, as well as his own unfamiliarity with the process, and (2) it would be a financial hardship for Licensee to pay the forfeiture amount. Dr. Kreider likewise argues in her letter that the forfeiture would be financially burdensome for Licensee. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In his
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-619A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-619A1.pdf
      • violates the fair notice principles stated in Rust Communications and the fairness and equity principles stated in Melody Music. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-620A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-620A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Westchester Community College (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Class D station WARY(FM), Valhalla, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-621A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-621A1.pdf
      • Request. In its Request, Licensee states that: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent; (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship; and (3) it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-628A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-628A1.pdf
      • Trustee (``Savage'') to Jireh Media, Inc. (``Jireh''). On August 26, 2009, Steven Lewis (``Lewis'') filed a pleading captioned ``Petition to Deny License Transfer for KQLO, Reno'' (``Objection''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, for the reasons stated below, we: (1) dismiss Lewis' pleading as a petition to deny; (2) grant the pleading as an informal objection to the extent discussed below and deny it in all other respects; (3) grant the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-634A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-634A1.pdf
      • the untimely filing of the renewal applications or its failure to request special temporary authorization (``STA'') to continue the Stations' operations after its licenses had expired. In response to the NALs, Licensee submitted two letters (collectively, ``Requests'') on December 10, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee requests
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-63A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-63A1.pdf
      • for unauthorized operation of the Stations. Licensee filed the subject Response. In its Response, Licensee states that its failure to timely file the renewal applications was unintentional, and that this reason warrants a reduction or cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee asserts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-673A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-673A1.pdf
      • BBN explained that the untimely filing was ``wholly inadvertent.'' BBN submitted a ``Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Petition for Reconsideration'' (``Response'') on July 25, 2007. In its Response, BBN states that its failure to timely file the renewal application was unintentional. BBN further claims that the Commission improperly imposed a forfeiture for untimeliness, arguing that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form. It further asserts that its failure to timely file the license renewal application was neither willful nor repeated. BBN also argues that the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539 of the Rules, asserting that
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-674A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-674A1.pdf
      • attributed to its staff's unfamiliarity with the filing process; and (2) the Station is a Class D, student-run station that provides a unique service to the community. Centerville asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Centerville does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-675A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-675A1.pdf
      • \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\kerning28 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 4.\tab}}\pard \ltrpar\s15\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\jclisttab\tx1440\wrapdefault{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls6\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls6\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\fs22\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b)(2)(D).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\fs22\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80(b)(4).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 and the Commission\rquote s }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \i Forfeiture Policy Statement}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 .}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs19\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar \s18\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-702A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-702A1.pdf
      • the License and Modification Applications were filed by Saga Communications of New England, LLC (``Saga''), licensee of FM translator station W240CB, at Ithaca, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(e) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), and by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, for the reasons stated below, we: (1) dismiss the License Objection as moot; (2) grant in part and deny in all other respects the Modification and Supplemental Objections; (3) grant the Modification Application; and (4) conclude that Saga is apparently liable for a monetary
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1064A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1064A1.pdf
      • in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or unknown additional facts not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. TTU has failed to meet this burden. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As noted
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-108A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-108A1.pdf
      • filed a Request for Cancellation or Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture (``Request'') on September 30, 2010. In its Request, Southern states that cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1091A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1091A1.pdf
      • when the petitioner shows either a material error in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or additional facts not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. The forfeiture amount for this violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1105A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1105A1.pdf
      • Faith Baptist Church, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9146, 9148 (MB 2007); Geneva Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 10642, 10644 (MB 2006). Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 14650. Petition at 2-3. Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, � 39 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''). 5 U.S.C. � 601-12 (2006). Petition at 2-3. 47 U.S.C. � 405; 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). Section 405 of the Act does not require the Commission to afford the licensee with personal
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1135A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1135A1.pdf
      • In its Letter, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) it attempted to timely file the application and believed that the filing had been successfully completed electronically; and (2) paying the forfeiture would present a financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1137A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1137A1.pdf
      • an educational and community-related purpose; (2) the student-run nature of the Station warrants a measure of leniency when assessing the penalty; and (3) it will take steps to prevent future violations by designating a non-student supervisor to oversee its public file. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1138A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1138A1.pdf
      • thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600). IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Pittsfield Public School Committee on November 19, 2010, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS ALSO ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.283 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that Pittsfield Public School Committee IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.3539 of the Commission's Rules and Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1227A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1227A1.pdf
      • the Licensee on April 26, 2011 (requesting authority for the station to remain silent) and June 16, 2011 (requesting authority to operate with other than licensed facilities). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, by the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau (the ``Bureau'') by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely renewal application for the Station, and willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1228A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1228A1.pdf
      • only when petitioner shows either a material error in the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or unknown additional facts not known or existing at the time of petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. Licensee has failed to meet this burden. The forfeiture amount for the violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1339A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1339A1.pdf
      • Media Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Nievezquez Productions, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WPRX(AM), Bristol, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1340A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1340A1.pdf
      • that it failed to place quarterly issues/programs reports in the public inspection file from 2000 through the first quarter of 2004, and only then properly formatted the lists and placed them in the Station's public file. WPW Broadcasting, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 13250 (MB 2010) (``Forfeiture Order''). Petition at 3-6. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(A), as implemented by 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(1). See also Cumulus Licensing LLC KGEE(FM), Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 4471 (MB 2008) (declining, pursuant to Section 503(b)(6)(A) of the Act, to propose a forfeiture for willful and repeated Rule violations). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 August 3, 2011 ! � � � � � �
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1341A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1341A1.pdf
      • file a required form'' but rather filed it late; (2) the forfeiture amount is ``far out of proportion to the seriousness of the violations;'' and (3) its history of compliance with the Rules warrants reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture amount. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Butler first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1344A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1344A1.pdf
      • warranted because: (1) an imposition of the forfeiture would not serve the public interest; and (2) the forfeiture would impose a substantial financial hardship upon the Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township and WBDG. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1351A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1351A1.pdf
      • its Request, Licensee argues that a reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture is warranted because: (1) the forfeiture would impose a substantial financial hardship upon the Station; and (2) the forfeiture amount is excessive. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1384A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1384A1.pdf
      • supplied federal tax returns for the years 2004 and 2005, audited financial statements for 2006, and a profit and loss statement for the first six months of 2007. The Response does not contest the NAL's findings with respect to the violations. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1385A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1385A1.pdf
      • violation occurred during a period of frequent turnover; (3) Licensee voluntarily disclosed its violations; (4) upon recognition of the violation, Licensee immediately and voluntarily complied with the Rules; and (5) Licensee has a history of overall compliance with the Rules. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We decline
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1437A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1437A1.pdf
      • (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Faith Community Church (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W261AE, Camden, Delaware (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1438A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1438A1.pdf
      • it the captioned application of Family Worship Center Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station W208BC, Corning, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1439A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1439A1.pdf
      • OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: August 22, 2011 Released: August 23, 2011 By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau: Introduction MSG Radio, Inc. (``MSG''), assignee of WIAC-FM (``Station''), filed a Petition for Reconsideration (the ``Petition'') of the Forfeiture Order issued to MSG and Luis A. Mejia (``Mejia''), assignee of the Station, on November 19, 2008, for their willful violation of Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') by failing to provide required information on the above-captioned application (``Application'') for Commission consent to the assignment of the Station's license from Mejia to MSG. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the Petition and affirm the forfeiture issued by the Media Bureau, Audio Division (``Bureau'') in the total amount of three thousand dollars
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1601A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1601A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Family Worship Center Church, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K235CZ, Winona, Minnesota (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its license had expired.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1602A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1602A1.pdf
      • (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Riverton Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for FM Translator Station K292BA, Dubois, Wyoming (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by continuing Station operations after its license had expired.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1603A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1603A1.pdf
      • (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of St. Bonaventure University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Station WSBU(FM), St. Bonaventure, New York (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1663A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1663A1.pdf
      • 301 of the Act. In response, Licensee filed the subject Response arguing that these violations were not intentional, and that it is financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1688A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1688A1.pdf
      • chronologically) of translator K265AS, Livingston, Montana (``Station'') filed by Reier Broadcasting, Inc. (``Licensee''). Also before us is Capstar TX Limited Partnership's (``Capstar'') Petition to Deny and its ``Motion to Dismiss'' filed against the First and Second Applications, respectively, as well as related pleadings. Pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), we find that Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules by failing to timely file the First Application for the Station and for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of the Station after its license had expired. Based upon our review of the facts
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1752A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1752A1.pdf
      • before it the captioned application of Vermont Agency of Transportation (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station WRAN-LP, Randolph, Vermont (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1753A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1753A1.pdf
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Hartford Board of Education (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WQTQ(FM), Hartford, Connecticut (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1757A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1757A1.pdf
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Salmon River Communication, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KSRA(AM), Salmon, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1758A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1758A1.pdf
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned application of Salmon River Communication, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station KSRA-FM, Salmon, Idaho (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1805A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1805A1.pdf
      • the captioned application of Calvary Chapel of the Redwoods (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Low Power FM Station KRDW-LP, Smith River, California (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by continuing Station operations after its
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1823A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1823A1.pdf
      • current cases. Because Licensees raise an argument already considered and rejected, it will not be reexamined. Next, the Licensees argue that levying a larger forfeiture against the Licensees than against certain licensees who file their untimely renewal applications closer in time to the violation was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' We reject this argument. Under Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the Bureau has the discretion to adjust the proposed forfeiture based on the ``nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation.'' In keeping with this discretion, however, the Bureau consistently has assessed the full three thousand dollar ($3,000) base forfeiture amount for licensees who, as here, file their renewal applications more than thirty days after the expiration
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1947A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1947A1.pdf
      • has before it the captioned application of Lincoln University (the ``Licensee'') for renewal of its license for Class D FM Station WWLU(FM), Lincoln University, Pennsylvania (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file a timely license renewal application for the Station. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that the Licensee is
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1961A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1961A1.pdf
      • Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it the captioned applications of Hope Broadcasting, Inc. (the ``Licensee''), for renewal of its license for Station WFGN(AM), Gaffney, South Carolina (the ``Station''). In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), by authority delegated to the Bureau under Section 0.283 of the Rules, we find that the Licensee apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.3539 of the Rules, by failing to file timely license renewal applications for the Station, and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act, by engaging in unauthorized operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1980A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1980A1.pdf
      • the Station until April 5, 2011. In its Response, Licensee asserts that it was misinformed by the Station's engineer about the appropriate process for seeking a renewal and that Station's financial difficulties warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-2014A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-2014A1.pdf
      • 1, 2004, expiration date. Licensee did not file the application until August 30, 2004, and provided no explanation for the untimely filing of the renewal application. Licensee did not submit a response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. We conclude
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-223A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-223A1.pdf
      • from the Commission's database. However, Licensee continued operating the Station and did not file the application until July 19, 2006, over one year after the Station's license had expired. Licensee submitted a response (``Response'') to the NAL on December 28, 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-233A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-233A1.pdf
      • of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 5553 (MB 2007). Licensee admitted that it failed to place quarterly issues/programs reports in the public file from January 1997, through June 1999, and did not properly format the lists or place them in the Station's public file until mid-August, 2004. Response at 2-3. 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(6)(A), as implemented by 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c)(1). See also Cumulus Licensing LLC KGEE(FM), Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 4471 (MB 2008) (declining, pursuant to Section 503(b)(6)(A) of the Act, to propose a forfeiture for willful and repeated Rule violations). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 February 8, 2011 u v z { ... { �%���PNG
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-234A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-234A1.pdf
      • excessive compared to proposed forfeiture amounts issued in other decisions; (2) their failure to timely file did not adversely affect the public interest; and (3) their failure to timely file the renewal application was partially due to difficulties with CDBS. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensees argue
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-235A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-235A1.pdf
      • excessive compared to proposed forfeiture amounts issued in other decisions; (2) their failure to timely file did not adversely affect the public interest; and (3) their failure to timely file the renewal applications was partially due to difficulties with CDBS. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amounts proposed in these cases were assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensees argue
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-236A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-236A1.pdf
      • ult{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls13\pnrnot0 \pndec\pnb0\pni0\pnstrike0\pnfs22\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}}\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls13\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \tab The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s27\ql \li0\ri0\sa100\saauto1\widctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustrigh t\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 U.S.C. \'a7 503(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 Section 1.80 of the Rules,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s27\ql \li0\ri0\sa100\saauto1\widctlpar \tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustrigh t\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 1.80. }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 and the Commission\rquote s }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \i Forfeiture Policy Statement}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 .}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs32\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s27\ql \li0\ri0\sa100\saauto1\widctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\a spalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-265A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-265A1.pdf
      • 6, 2008. In his Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) the proposed forfeiture is inconsistent with other proposed forfeitures imposed on similarly situated licensees, and (2) he has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-266A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-266A1.pdf
      • 6, 2008. In its Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled because: (1) the proposed forfeiture is inconsistent with other proposed forfeitures imposed on similarly situated licensees, and (2) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-267A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-267A1.pdf
      • Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''); (4) the forfeiture is unreasonable because no member of the public has made a request to see the Station's public inspection file; and (5) Licensee has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee contends
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-268A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-268A1.pdf
      • proposed forfeiture based on its inability to pay and overall history of compliance. As evidence of financial hardship, Licensee has submitted financial statements (``Statements'') for both the Station and Licensee for calendar years 2004-2006 and the first five months of 2007. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-309A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-309A1.pdf
      • 26, 2010, Elaine C. Rougeau, the president of Ethics, filed a ``Response to Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture'' (``Response''). In her Response, Rougeau states that payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause her financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. In the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-397A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-397A1.pdf
      • not file the application until July 30, 2004. In response to the NAL, BBN filed a ``Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Petition for Reconsideration'' (``Response'') on July 25, 2007 arguing that: (1) its failure to file the renewal application was not willful but unintentional; (2) the Commission improperly imposed the forfeiture for untimeliness, claiming that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form; (3) its failure to timely file the license renewal application not willful as required by Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''); (4) the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-398A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-398A1.pdf
      • for the Stations' licenses. However, BBN did not file the applications until July 28, 2003. In response to the NALs, BBN filed a ``Request for Reduction of Proposed Forfeiture'' on September 2, 2004, arguing that: (1) its failure to file the renewal applications was not willful but unintentional; (2) the Commission improperly imposed the forfeitures for untimeliness, claiming that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form; (3) its failure to timely file the license renewal applications was neither willful nor repeated as required by Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''); (4) the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-399A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-399A1.pdf
      • not file the application until July 1, 2005. In response to the NAL, BBN filed a ``Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Petition for Reconsideration'' (``Response'') on March 13, 2007 arguing that: (1) its failure to file the renewal application was not willful but unintentional; (2) the Commission improperly imposed the forfeiture for untimeliness, claiming that Section 1.80 of the Rules prescribes a forfeiture for failure to file a required form, rather than failure to timely file a required form; (3) its failure to timely file the license renewal application not willful as required by Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''); (4) the Commission improperly dismissed its request for waiver of Section 73.3539
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-409A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-409A1.pdf
      • July 31, 2007 (``Response''). In its Response, Licensee asserts that the proposed forfeiture should be cancelled due to its inability to pay and supplied federal tax returns for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. III. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee argues
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-650A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-650A1.pdf
      • rules. A copy of the NAL was sent to Licensee on or about July 13, 2010, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. The Return Receipt was signed by Carol Clark on July 23, 2010. Licensee filed no response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee, as
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-678A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-678A1.pdf
      • the Commission's original order or raises changed circumstances or additional facts not known or existing at the time of the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. Here, Licensee presents new financial documents that purport to show an inability to pay the forfeiture. The forfeiture amount for this violation was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The Commission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-679A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-679A1.pdf
      • and location of the Children's Television Programming Reports'' as required by Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) of the Rules. The University further claims that its failure to comply with the public file rule was not an egregious action that merited a $9,000 base forfeiture amount. We disagree. The forfeiture amount proposed was the base amount indicated in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules for public file violations. We believe the base amount is appropriate in the circumstances presented here. The University again argues that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because paying the forfeiture amount would cause it significant financial hardship. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to inability to pay unless the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-683A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-683A1.pdf
      • which a licensee was issued a $3,500 forfeiture for, among other things, public file violations. See Petracom of Joplin, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 6248 (EB 2004)(``Petracom''). With repect to Petracom, we note that the Bureau retains discretion to determine forfeiture amounts on a case-by-case basis. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4); see, e.g., Gaston College, Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 982, 986 (EB 2010) (Enforcement Bureau declines to follow Bureau precedent involving denial of access to station's public file); John Jason Bennett, Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 17193, 17195, n.14 (MB 2005) (noting that Wireless Bureau precedent is not binding on the Bureau). Towson University, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8747 (MB
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-684A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-684A1.pdf
      • a licensee was issued a $3,500 forfeiture for, among other things, public file violations. See Petracom of Joplin, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 6248 (EB 2004)(``Petracom''). With respect to Petracom, we note that the Media Bureau retains discretion to determine forfeiture amounts on a case-by-case basis. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4); see, e.g., Gaston College, Forfeiture Order, 25 FCC Rcd 982, 986 (EB 2010) (Enforcement Bureau declines to follow Bureau precedent involving denial of access to station's public file); John Jason Bennett, Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 17193, 17195, n.14 (MB 2005) (noting that Wireless Bureau precedent is not binding on the Bureau). Towson University, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8747 (MB
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-690A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-690A1.pdf
      • its Request, Licensee states that the NAL should be cancelled or reduced because: (1) the violation was unintentional; (2) the Station did not believe it was engaging in unauthorized operation, and (3) the statute of limitations barred issuance of the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-691A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-691A1.pdf
      • and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 21 FCC Rcd 8471 (MB 2006) ($10,000 forfeiture assessed for nine missing issues/programs lists); Emerson College, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 21 FCC Rcd 8488 (MB 2006)($10,000 forfeiture assessed for fifteen missing issues/programs lists). KAMJ(FM) Petition at 9; KQXF(FM) Petition at 9. Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17109, �� 51, 52 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 11-691 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-691 j t i j u � � � 0
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-694A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-694A1.pdf
      • filed the subject Response. In its Response, Licensee states that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because: (1) its failure to timely file the renewal application was inadvertent, and (2) payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-720A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-720A1.pdf
      • employees to manage the radio station or adequately supervise Jireh's work. On April 13, 2010, the staff issued the NAL to the Trustee for unauthorized transfer of control of the Station. The Trustee did not file a response to the NAL. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-987A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-987A1.pdf
      • are less than those of full-power stations for the same violations; (2) Licensee acted in good faith by voluntarily disclosing its failure to timely file; (3) Licensee has a history of overall compliance; and (4) the Station is unable to pay. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-1004A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-1004A1.pdf
      • commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate'' the law. The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. 9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file a required form. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-132A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-132A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-205A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-205A1.pdf
      • stating that cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture is warranted because the Station's co-owner is ill and because it operates a struggling AM radio station in a small town and payment of the proposed forfeiture will cause it financial hardship. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,8 Section 1.80 of the Rules,9 and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement.10 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-219A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-219A1.pdf
      • filing deadline or the lapsed license; 2) Licensee self-reported the issue and has taken corrective measures; and 3) Licensee operated the Station as a not-for-profit entity. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or significant reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Licensee first
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-272A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-272A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.pdf
      • 2009, this same market, Gainesville, had 11 LPFM stations. Table 2 Average Number of LPFM Stations in a Market by Size of the Arbitron Metro Markets Ranked by Size 2005 2007 2009 1 - 10 1.70 2.40 2.60 11 - 20 1.60 1.40 1.70 21 - 30 1.10 2.00 2.10 31 - 40 1.20 1.40 1.50 41 - 50 1.20 1.80 1.80 51 - 60 1.40 2.00 2.40 61 - 70 1.40 1.50 1.40 71 - 80 0.50 0.80 2.10 81 - 90 1.70 2.70 1.90 91 - 100 0.80 1.10 1.40 1 - 100 1.26 1.71 1.89 101 - 110 1.60 2.10 2.20 111 - 120 1.40 1.50 1.50 121 - 130 0.70 0.90 0.80 131 - 140 1.20 1.80
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-563A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-563A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-564A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-564A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-623A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-623A1.pdf
      • has a long history of compliance with the rules and a record of public service. It also alleges financial hardship. Finally, South Seas argues that it is a victim of ``selective enforcement of the rules.'' discussion The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-631A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-631A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-632A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-632A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-657A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-657A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-658A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-658A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-659A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-659A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-660A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-660A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of the public file rule. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-695A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-695A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-751A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-751A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3526. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-752A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-752A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-758A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-758A1.pdf
      • the term in the Section 503(b) context. Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for violation of Section 73.3527. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-822A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-822A1.pdf
      • (2) the staff improperly distinguished Telemedia Broadcasting, Inc.; (3) the cases cited in the NAL do not support its determination regarding supplemental coverage showings; (4) after reviewing Licensee's supplemental showings, Commission staff ultimately found that the main studio relocation was Rule-compliant; and (5) it has a history of compliance with the Rules. DISCUSSION The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules establish a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for violation of the Commission's main studio rule. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-986A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-986A1.pdf
      • when the school is not required to operate its station under Section 73.561(a). Additionally, Licensee states that it has a history of compliance with the Commission's Rules. Licensee asserts that these reasons warrant a cancellation or reduction of the assessed forfeiture. DISCUSSION The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. Late-Filed Application.
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-92-223A1.pdf
      • Foundation.Inc. Licensee.Noncommercial RadioStationKNON(FM) 4415SanJacinto Dallas.TX75204 DearLicensee: Attention:ArquillaSmith.VicePresident anymessageorotherprogrammingmaterialwhich isbroadcastorotherwisetransmittedinexchange foranyremuneration.andwhichisintended...to promoteanyservice.facility.orproductofferedby anypersonwhoisengagedinsuchofferingfor profit.... ThisletterconstitutesaNoticeofApparentLiabilityfor aforfeitureofFiveThousandDollars($5.000).forviola- tionsofSection399BoftheCommunicationsActof 1934.asamended.ThisnoticeisissuedpursuanttoSec- tion503(b)oftheCommunicationsAct.underauthority delegatedtotheChiefoftheMassMediaBureauby Section0.283oftheCommission�sRules. Section399BoftheCommunicationsActprohibits publicbroadcaststationsfrombroadcastingadvertise- ments.Itdefinesanadvertisementas: 47 U.s.C.�399b.See"Lso47C.F.R.�73.503:andApril 14.1986. PubLicNotice. BecauseofcomplaintsindicatingthatKNON(FM). Dallas.TX.mighthaveviolatedSection399BoftheCom- municationsActof1934.asamended.andrelatedCom- missionrulesandpolicies.theMassMediaBureau's EnforcementDivisionsentyoualetterofinquirydated July8.1991.Thelettersoughtspecificinformationcon- cerningunderwritingannouncementsapparentlyairedon March28-29andMay24-25.1991.(Transcriptsattached.) Youwerealsoaskedtosupplycertaininformationabout KNON'sarrangementstobroadcastprogramming"pro- duced...orfurnishedbypersonsotherthanthelicensee." asregulatedbySection73.503(cloftheCommission's rules. ByanswerdatedAugust6.1991.youconcededthat "therewereproblems"insomeoftheMarch1991 underwritingannouncements.primarilyduringprogram- mingproducedbyTejanoMediaGroup(TMG).Pursuant toyourcontractwiththatorganization.TMGwasau- 1709 DA92-223 FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord 7FCCRedNo.5 thesestandards.$2,500isthebaseforfeitureforviolation ofunderwritinglimitationsbynoncommercialstations. Thatfigurewasincreasedtoreflectthefactthatthe violationswererepeated. Inregardtothisforfeitureproceeding.youareafforded aperiodofthirty(30)daysfromthedateofthisletter"to show.inwriting.whyaforfeiturepenaltyshouldnotbe imposedorshouldbereduced.ortopaytheforfeiture. Anyshowingastowhytheforfeitureshouldnotbe imposedorshouldbereducedshallincludeadetailed factualstatementandsuchdocumentationandaffidavits asmaybepertinent."47C.F.R.�1.80(f)(3).Otherrel- evantprovisionsofSection1.80oftheCommission's Rulesaresummarizedintheattachmenttothisletter. Sincerely, RoyJ.Stewart Chief.MassMediaBureau ATTACHMENTS KNON(FM),March28-29,1991 1.CasaJose--Justlikemomusedtomakeit.CasaJose hastheMexicanplateslikesteakranchero.realtender strips...tanpequenomarinatedinourspecialsauce grilledwithbellpepperandfreshjalapenostrips.andyes. ofcourse.theymaketheirhome-madetortillas... 2.DuncanvilleDiscountTires--... specializesinnewand qualitytiresforpassengercars.sportscars.(etc.).... 3.Steve'sPawnShop-- Hey--yeah.you--findyourself shortofmoney,nocreditatthehank.everybodyturning youdownforaloan?Feelinglost?Well.Here'sSteve. what?Here'sSteve...Stevewho?Steve'sPawnShopand Jewelry.that'sright...Steve'sPawnShopandJewelrywill loanyoumoneyonitemssuchasgold.jewelry.(etc.).any itemofworth.... 4.AmigoCustomPaintandBodyShop--... AmigoCus- tomPaintandBody...Yes.ofcourse.toserveyou...they havefreeestimates.insuranceclaimsarewelcome... 5.The,I.{onopoly--... Everyoneinthemetrolexknows wheredowntownDallasis...andofcourseeveryone knowswhereTheMonopolyis...butsomemayask.what isTheMonopoly?Well,theMonopolyisthediscothat guaranteesyoulotsoffuneveryweekendFridayfrom8 p.m.to3a.m.,Saturday,from8p.m.to4a.m....free entryfrom8-10...andalsothefunisthereuntil2p.m.... Buttheimportantthingisthatyoucameandfindoutfor yourselfwhatrealfunis...oraskthemanagersPepeand HectorHinojosawhatisgoingon.everyweekendatThe Monopoly.Yes.TheMonopolyisthegrandshow!show! show! TheMonopolyShow...Nowyourguaranteedfunisat TheMonopoly.Yes.havefundancingsalsa.merengue. cumbia.balada,disco.(etc.)...Sundaysfreeentryfrom 8-10...nowthereisanexcusetogoandhavefun.... 6.RestauranteSantana--...If youwanttoeatsomething delicious.100%Mexican,RestauranteSantanahasthe best...housespecialty...tryitanddelightyourselfwiththe excellentfood.... 1"71n 7.StolarChiropracticClinic--... Lifecanbefullof pain...thedoctorsatStolarChiropracticClinicwantyou tofeelhealthyagain.Theyarespecialistsatneck.head. back.armandlegpains....Ifyouarehurtinanauto accidentoratworkandyoudon'tknowwhyyouare feelingpain,thedoctorsatStolarChiropracticCliniccan helpyoutoday.Freeconsultationstoeveryone...youdo nothavetolivewithpainanymore.StolarChriopractic areheresoyoucanfeellikenewagain...StolarChiro-
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-97-1740A1.pdf
      • Althoughyoucontend thatreferenceto"friendlyfaces"intheNissanofTemeculaannouncement(#3) doesnotdescribetheunderwriter'spersonnel,butratherpeoplethroughoutthecommunity,webelieve that alistener,giventhewaytheannouncementisworded,wouldrelate"friendlyfaces"totheautodealer's staff.Similarly,werejectyourargumentthatthereferencestoRanchoTransmission(#4)asTemecula's "oldesttransmissionservice"andits"warranty"aresimplyfactsandshould,therefore,bepermissible. "Oldest"isacomparativeterm."Warranty"constitutesprohibitedpriceinfonmationandan inducement tobuy.Bothreferences,factornot,clearlyexceedtheidentification-onlylimitationsonunderwriting announcements.Wealsonote thattheNissanofTemeculaannouncement(#3)containsthetypeofnon- identifyingverbositypointedouttoyouinthe1992NoticeofApparentLiability.Specifically,the underwriter'sname,''NissanofTemecula,"isrepeatedcontinuouslythroughoutthespot. Finally,withrespecttoannouncement5,itappearsthattheprimarypurposeoftheannouncementandthe remotebroadcastwastopromotetheCostainClassics,notthestationitself: 5.ThisweekendthesoundtrackoftheValley8.9FMThe Mixwillbroadcastlivefromthe grandopeningoftheallnewfurnishedPlanIModelHomeatCostainClassics,atSilverhawk rightoffWmchesterinTemeculaCostainClassicshasthreefinnishedmodelstoviewwithup 1949 FederalCommunicationsConunission DA97-1740 tofivebedrooms.Theliveremotebroadcastbeginsat11a.ffiandcontinues until3inthe afternoon,withbestcostumeprizes,pumpkinsandgiveaways.... Theannouncementgoesbeyondthemereidentificationofthelocationoftheremote-itinformslisteners oftheproductsofferedatthatlocation("allnewfurnishedPlanIModelHomeatCostainClassic,""three furnishedmodelstoview").Undersuchcircumstances,itisaviolationoftheActandourRules.The Commissionhaslongheldthatifprogrammingisbasedonthelicensee'spublicinterestjudgmentrather than anexchangeofconsideration,identificationoftheoriginationpointofaremoteispermissible. However,promotionofanon-stationeventand/orestablishmentbeyondidentificationofitslocationis not.. LetterfromChief,ComplaintsandInvestigationsBranch,EnforcementDivision,MassMedia Bureau,FCC,toJamesL.Zix,GeneralManager,StationWI.AB(FM)(July8,1992),citingCommissjon PolicyConcerningtheNoncommercialNatureofEducationalBroadcastingStations,86FCC2d141,153 (1981). Basedontheevidencebetoreus,itappearsthatyourepeatedlyviolatedSection399BoftheActon October27and28;1993.YouareherebyadvisedofyourapparentliabilityforatotalforfeitureofSix ThousandDollars($6,000)foryourapparentviolations.Indeterminingaforfeitureamount,wetakeinto accountthenature,circumstances,extent,andgravityoftheviolation,aswellasthedegreeofculpability andtheStation'spriorhistoryofviolations.Section503(b)(2)(D)oftheCommunicationsActof1934, asamended,47U.S.c. �503(b)(2)(D). Ourpriorforfeituretoyouforsimilarviolations wasissuedwithacautionthatcontinuedfailuretocomply withourRulesandtheActwouldresultinamoresubstantialforfeiture.Despitethis,youhavecontinued to airpromotionalannouncementssimilartothosewefoundimpermissiblein1992.Further,wenotethat wecontinm:toreceivecomplaintsallegingthatStationKR1Misstillbroadcastingimpermissible promotionalannouncements.Yourviolationsareaggravatedbytheinaccuracyofyourresponsetoour firstletterofinquiry.Takingintoaccounttherepeatednatureofyourviolation,thecarelessnesswith whichyourespondedtoourfirstletterofinquiry,andyourhistoryofpastruleviolations,Webelievethat a$6,000forfeitureisappropriate. Inregardtothisforfeitureproceeding,youareaffordedaperiodofthirty(30)daysfromthedateofthis letter"toshow,inwriting,whyaforfeiturepenaltyshouldnotbeimposedorshouldbereduced,ortopay theforfeiture.Anyshowingastowhytheforfeitureshouldnotbeimposedorshouldbereducedshall includeadetailedfactualstatementandsuchdocumentationandaffidavitsasmaybepertinent."47 C.F.R �1.80(f)(3).OtherrelevantprovisionsofSection1.80oftheCommission'sRulesaresummarized intheattachmenttothisletter. Sincerely, Roy1.Stewart Chief,MassMediaBureau Enclosure cc: PeterTannenwald,Esq. Complainant 1950 KRTM(FM),Temecula;CA October27,1993 FederalCommunicationsCommission DA 97-1740 .I. Hi, here. thosethreebears offIfoundacottageintheAdobePlazaright heremTemecula.ItsnottoobIg,nottoosmall,butJustnght.It'ssurroundedbyover15businessesthaI makeuptheAdobePlaza.Nottoomany,nottoofew,butjustright.There'salsospaceforG10re businesses.InformationisavailablefromOsbournPropertiesat694-9320.TheAdobePlaza,locatedon JeffersonAvenue,isthehomeofPeacockUnifonns,GentlyUsedFmniture,AdobeChiropractic,National Communications,andthe KRIMbusinessoffice...justtonameafew.Nottoofew,butjustright. 2.(Ringsoundeffect.)Hello?Hey,Mark,thisisLoxie.rvegotsomeexcitingnews.What's up?IjustfoundafurniturestorelocatedrighthereinTemeculawithfurniturethat'sbeenused... gently. Ah.vAJatdoyoumeangentlyused?Imeanlikealmostnew.Thestorehasfilledup8timesin 48dayswithsofas,dinettes,chairs,tables,recliners,rockers,curios, beds,desks,chinacabinetsandmore. CMnersRickandJeannie Kearntakeinalltypesoffurnitureonconsignment.Consignment,huh?Where isthisplace? IntheAdobePlazaonJeffersonAvenuenexttoTony'sSpunkySteerandthatlocalradio station KRIMorsomething.Oh,yeah,theprogrammingofthatstationisunderwrittenbythis announcement.GentlyUsedFurniture,27625JeffersonAvenue,699-5044. October28,1993 3.TemeculaValley'sourlocation...NissanofTemeculaYeah,we'vegotcausefor celebl"@.tion.Nissancarsand trucks,we'vegot'emall.NlSsanofTemeculaIntheTemeculaAutoMall ...NissanofTemeculaThere'sfriendlyfacesallaround...theonlyNISsandealerintown.It's NissanofTemeculaNissanofTemeculaisanunderwriterofprogrammingon KRIM 4.RanchoTransmission,theoldesttransmissioncenterinTemecula,isanunderwriterof programmingonKRlMAutomatictransmissionpreventativemaintenancescheduleisevery20,000miles ....FamilyownedandoperatedintheTemeculaValley.Rebuilttransmissionworkcarriesaone-year warrantyor24,000miles.RanchoTransmissionlocatedonViaMontezumainTemecula.Thephone numberis676-6569. 5.ThisweekendthesoundtrackoftheValley88.9FMTheMixwill broadcastlivefromthe grandopeningoftheallnewfurnishedPlanIModelHomeatCostainClassics,atSilverhawkrightoff WmchesterinTemeculaCostainClassics hasthreefurnishedmodelstoviewwithuptofivebedrooms. Theliveremote broadcastbeginsatIIamandcontinuesuntil3intheafternoon,withbestcostume prizes,pumpkinsandgivea'MlYS.Fordirections,thephonenumberis698-4100.ThisHalloweeneve, Saturday,October30th,fromIIto3.AliveremotebroadcastfromCostainClassicsatSilverhawk,from thestationthatlovesitlive,88.9FMThe
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-97-2395A1.pdf
      • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FederalCommunicationsCommission Beforethe FederalCommunicationsCommission Washington,D.C.20554 IntheMatterof )) Liabilityof )) AnaG.MendezEducationalFoundation ) Licensee,NoncommercialStationWMTJ-TV ) Fajardo,PuertoRico )) ForaForfeiture ) FORFEITUREORDER DA97-2395 Adopted:November14,1997 BytheChief,MassMediaBureau: Released:November17,1997 I. PursuanttoSection503(b)oftheCommunicationsActof1934,asamended(the"Act"),47 U.S.C.�503(b),andSections1.80and0.283oftheCommission'sRules,theChief,MassMediaBureau, onApril14,1994,releasedaMemorandumOpinionandOrder,9FCCRcd1797(MMB1994) ("MO&O"), whichorderedtheAnaG.MendezEducationalFoundation("Foundation")toforfeit$3,500 forrepeatedviolationsofSection399BoftheAct,47U.S.C.�399B,andSection73.621(e)ofthe Commission'sRules,47C.F.R.�73.621(e).BythisForfeitureOrder,wevacatetheMO&O,recompute theforfeiture.andreduceitto$3,000. 2.Ininitiallydeterminingtheforfeitureamount,wefollowedthestandardsestablishedin StandardsforAssessingForfeitures, 8FCCRcd6215(1993).OnJuly12,1994,theUnitedStatesCourt ofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiavacatedthosestandards.SeeUnitedStatesTelephoneAssn.v. FCC, 28F.3d1232(D.C.Cir.1994).Inlightofthecourt'sdecision,itbecomesnecessarytorecompute theamountoftheforfeiture.AsspecifiedbytheCommissioninTheCommission'sForfeiturePolicy StatementandAmendmentofSection1.80oftheRulestoIncorporatetheForfeitureGuidelines, FCC97- 218,releasedJuly28,1997,wewillevaluatetheinstantmatter"underthecase-by-caseapproachineffect whentheviolationoccurred."Id.at 3.IntheMO&O,wenotedthattheFoundationconcededthatithadbroadcastcommercial messagesforfivecompaniesduringitscoverageofthe1993U.S.OpenTennisTournament.After analyzingtheFoundation'srecords,wedeterminedthatseveralhundredcommercialmessageshadbeen airedoverthecourseofsevendays.InTyree,JamesW,6FCCRed2034(MMB1991),weissueda NoticeofApparentLiabilityforaforfeitureof$3,000forapparentrepeatedviolationsofSection399B, whereanoncommercialradiostationwasfoundtohavebroadcastcommercialsregardingsevenentities overathree-dayperiodandadmittedthatsuchcommercialshadbeenbroadcastconsistentlyduringa seven-monthperiod.InSpringtownEducationalBroadcastingFoundation,7FCCRcd2588(MMB 1992),weissuedaForfeitureOrderfor$5,000tothelicenseeofanoncommercialradiostationwhich broadcastcommercialsonthreedifferentdatesonbehalfof14differententities.Finally,inPenfold 19443 FederalCommunicationsCommission DA97-2395 Communications.Inc., DA97-1740,releasedAugust15,1997,weissuedaNoticeofApparentLiability foraforfeitureof$6,000toanoncommercialradiostationlicenseewhichhadbroadcastcommercialson behalfofsixentitiesoveratwo-dayperiodandwhichhadahistoryofpastruleviolations. 4.ConsideringthenumberofcommercialsairedbytheFoundationandtheirlimitedbroadcast duration,weconcludethata$3,000forfeitureisanappropriateamountascomparedtoforfeituresimposed forsimilarviolationsofSection399B.Inthisregard,wenotethattheforfeitureproposedislessthan thoseimposedinSpringtownandPenfoldbecausebothhadaggravatingfactorsnotpresenthere. Specifically.inSpringtown,thelicenseecontinuedtoviolatethestatuteafterbothaletterofinquiryand aNoticeofApparentLiabilityhadbeensent,whileinPenfold,thelicenseehadpreviouslyreceiveda NoticeofApparentLiabilityforviolatingtheprohibitionagainstairingcommercialsonthenoncommercial service.'Here.asinTyree,thelicensee'sviolationsapparentlyceasedonceitstransgressionswerebrought toitsattention.Moreover,inthepresentcase.thestationhashadnopastruleviolations,unlikethe licenseeinPe"fold.Thus.inrecomputingtheforfeiture.wehaveconsideredtheFoundation'shistoryof compliancewithourrules. 5.Moreover.werejecttheargumentscontainedintheFoundation'sJanuary28.1994,request forreductionoreliminationoftheforfeiture.Thus,wewillnoteliminatetheforfeitureorreduceit furtherbecausetheFoundationsupposedlylackedaspecificintenttoviolateourrulesorbecausethe violationinvolvedonebroadcastevent,atennistournament.RegardlessoftheFoundation'sclaimed intentorthenatureoftheprogramminginvolved,theviolationsoccurredrepeatedly--indeed,several h.undredtimesoverasevendayperiod.Likewise,wewillnoteliminatetheforfeitureorreduceitfurther becausethemoneyrequiredtopaytheforfeiturecouldbebetterspentonprogramservicesforthepublic. Anylicenseecouldsocontend;itsimplyprovidesnobasisforalteringtheamountoftheforfeiture. 6.Accordingly.ITISORDERED,thattheApril14,1994,MO&Oassessinga$3,500forfeiture againsttheAnaG.MendezEducationalFoundationisSETASIDE. 7.ITISFURTHERORDERED.that,pursuanttoSection503(b)oftheActtheAnaG.Mendez EducationalFoundationFORFEITtetheUnitedStatesthesumofthreethousanddollars($3,000)for repeated.�violationsofSection399BoftheActandSection73.621(e)oftheCommission'sRules. PaymentoftheforfeituremaybemadebymailingtotheCommission,attheaddressindicatedinthe attachmenttothisForfeitureOrder,acheckorsimilarinstrumentpayabletotheFederalCommunications
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-97-2535A1.pdf
      • from the date of this letter "to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any snowing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent." 47 C.F.R. Section 1.80(0(3). Other relevant provisions of Section 1.80 are summarized in the attachment to this letter. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mass Media Bureau 20242
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-98-2407A1.pdf
      • development,butitdididentifytheproductsoftheowneroftheremotelocationandprovideincentives forlistenerstovisitthatlocation.3Moreover,althoughPenfoldarguesthattheproductswereidentified inanonpromotionalway,wedisagree'Theannouncementconstitutedaprohibited"calltoaction"to attendthe"grandopening"oftheSilverhawkdevelopment\\here"all new"modelhomeswereavailable forviewing.Accordingly,werejectPenfold'sargumentsregardingthisannouncement andreaffinnour previousfindingthatthebroadcastofannouncement#5regardingtheSilverhawkremoteviolatedourrules ..andtheAct. 10.A$6,000 forfeiturewasassessedintheNALforthebroadcastofthesixannouncementsin questionduringatm>dayperiod,October27 and2&,1993.Inassessingthisforfeiture,theBureautook intoconsiderationtherepeatednatureoftheviolation,thecarelessnesswithwhichPenfoldrespondedto I Cf.XayjerUniversity,5FCCRed4920(1990)(thefactthatacompanyhasbeeninbusinessforover75years describestheexperiencethebusiness hastoofferinanon-qualitativeway). 2 ThefactthatPenfold'scounselheardmorepromotionallangua!1,ebroadcastonothernoncommercialstations isnotdispositive.ThematerialcounselheardmayormaynothavebeenincompliancewiththeActandourrules, dependingonthecircumstan=surrOlllldingthebroadcast,andthemattermayormaynothavebeenbroughttothe Conunission'sattention. ]Thus,contrarytoPenfold'sassertions,wefmditappropriatetorelyonLettertromChief,Complaintsand InvestigationsBranch,EnforcementDivision,MassMediaBureau,FCC,toJamesL.Zix.,GeneralManager,Station WLAB(FM)(July8,1992). 4 Penfoldassertsthat itispennissibleforannouncementsregardingremotebroadcaststocontaininformation abouttheproductsandservicesoftheowneroftheremotelocationsolongassuchinformationisnotpromotional. Insupportofitsposition,PenfoldcitesLettertoMeBobRosenthal(K\JNVl.datedNovember20,199LWefind thatcasetobenoncontrollingherebothbecausethe..mfonnatlonbroadcastabouttheSlIverhawkrealestate developmentwaspromotionalandbecause,unlikeInKUNV,considerationwasreceivedII1returnforti,ebroadcast oftheremoteatSilverh:l\\'k. 23733 FederalCommunicationsConunission DA98-2407 theBureau'sfIrstletterof inquiry,andPenfold'shistoryofpastruleviolations.HavingreviewedPenfold's responsetotheNAL,wereafI:innourfmdingsofviolationwithrespecttofouroftheannouncementsin question(#s2,4,5,and6),butreverseourfmdingsregardingannouncements#1and#3forthereasons setforthherein.Thebroadcastoffourannounceme(ltsmatwoday periodthatviolateSection399Bof theAct andSection73.503oftheCommission'sRulessupportsa$6,000forfeiture.Nonetheless,inview ofourfIndingsherein andourconclusionthatannouncements#1and#3arepermissible,wewillreduce the forfeitureto$4,000. II.Accordingly,ITISORDERED,pursuanttoSection503(b)oftheConununicationsActof 1934,asamended,47 US.c.�503(b),thatPenfoldCommunications, Inc.FORFEITtotheUnitedStates thestUn ofFour ThousandDollars($4,000)fortherepeatedviolationsofSection399Bofthe CommunicationsActof1934,asamended,47 US.c.�399B,andSection73.503oftheCommission's Rules,47C.F.R�73.503,asdescribedabove.PenfoldCommunications, Inc.maytakeanyofthesteps outlinedintheattachmenttothisletterregardingpaymentoftheforfeiturepursuanttoSection1.80ofthe Commission'sRules. 12.ITISFUR1HERORDERED,thattheMassMediaBureausendbyCertifIedMail-Return ReceiptRequested,acopyofthisMemorandumOpinionandOrderandForfeitureOrdertoPenfold Communications, Inc. FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION 23734
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-98-825A1.pdf
      • problemsatthestation(the1994violations)ordisregardofyourestablishedproceduresby individualannouncersorproducers(the1996violations).Youassertthatallindividuals responsiblefortheannouncementshavebeenreprimandedorterminatedfromthestation.And, youreportthatyouemployawidevarietyofmethodstoensurecompliancewithapplicable policiesandprocedures.Inthisregard,younotethedifficultyofsupervisingyourlargenumber ofon-airvolunteers(approximately60in1996and90in1997). In twoinstances,youquestionourassessmentofparticularannouncements,expressing youropinionthattheycomplywithour,requirements.Inonecase,areferenceto"theonly 13154 FederalCommunicationsCommission DA98-825 store...whereyoucanfmd...,"youstatethatthestoreinquestionisinfacttheonlyretailoutlet forcertainmerchandiseinaspecificpartoftown.Thus,youurgethattheword"only"isnot aqualitativedescription.Withrespecttoareferenceto "all-you-can-eatcatfishonSundays,"you maintainthat"all-you-can-eat"isavalueneutraldescriptionofatypeofrestaurantandisnot impliedpriceinformation. Wehavefoundtheword"only,"whencombinedwithadescriptionoffeaturesand attributes,tobepromotional."Only,"inthiscontext,suggestsacomparisonwithsimilar establishments;inconjunctionwithdescriptivematerial,itindicatesthattheestablishmentisthe "best"ofitskind.LettertoRadioStationKUNV(Rv1).July10,1989.Inyourannouncement forBlueSuedeShoe,"aleathergoodsandmusicstore,"theword"only"appearsincontextto reflectthestore'sstatusasthesolesourceofvariousgoodsinaspecificgeographicarea,rather thanaclaimthatitisthe"best"amongcompetingmerchants.Hence,weagreethatuseofthe word"only"doesnotinandofitselfrenderthisannouncementpromotional. Whileconsiderationsofcontextmayalsomakethephrase"a1I-you-can-eat" unobjectionable,wefindintheparticularcontextherethatitsusedoesimplypriceinformation. LettertoMaryLouJoseph,VicePresidentMemberServices,11FCCRed10052(MMB1996). Theannouncement,whichconcernstheRustyAnchorrestaurant,includesdescriptionsofdishes offeredandhoursofoperation."All-you-can-eatcatfishonSunday"isclearlypresentedasaone- day-a-weekspecialfeature,aneventinwhichpricingisaninducementtopatronage. YouattachtoyourresponseofFebruary19,1997,standardformatsthatyouproposeto useforannouncementsconcerningmusicclubs.Theseformatsinclude,amongotherthings, fairlyextensivedescriptionsoftheclubs'offerings,presentedonanight-by-nightbasis.We havewarnedinthepastofthedangersof"non-identifyingverbosity,"andhavecautionedagainst a"tendencytoexceedidentificationbydwellingatlengthontheusefulness,convenience,or advantagesoftheproductsorservicesmentioned."PenfoldCommunications,Inc.,8FCCRed 78(MMB1992).Whilewecannotassessyourproposedformatsintheabstract,i.e.without referencetospecificunderwriters,theirlengthandscopecouldrenderthempromotionalunder thisprecedent. In viewoftheabove,andinlightoftheviolationsyouhaveconcededandthosewehave found,itappearsthatinJuly,SeptemberandOctoberof1994,andinAugustandSeptemberof 1996,AgapeBroadcastingFoundation,licenseeofnoncommercialstationKNON-AM,Dallas, Texas,violatedSection399BoftheCommunicationsActof1934,asamended,andSection 73.503oftheCommission'sRules.Accordingly,youareherebyadvisedofyourapparent liabilityforaforfeitureoffivethousanddollars($5,000)foryourwillfulandrepeatedviolations. ThisforfeitureamountwasdetenninedafterconsiderationofthefactorssetforthinSection 503(b)(2)oftheCommunicationsAct,takingintoconsiderationthenature,circumstances,extent andgravityoftheviolations. 13155 FederalCommunicationsCommission DA98-825 Inregardtothisforfeiture,youareaffordedaperiodof thirty(30)daysfromthedateof thisNotice"toshow,inwriting,whyaforfeiturepenaltyshouldnot beimposedorpaythe forfeiture.Anyshowingastowhytheforfeitureshouldnotbeimposedorshouldbereduced shallincludeadetailedfactualstatementandsuchdocumentationandaffidavitsasmaybe pertinent."47C.F.RSection1.80(�)(3).OtherrelevantprovisionsofSection1.80are summarizedintheattachmenttothisNotice. FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION Roy1.Stewart,Chief MassMediaBureau 13156 FederalCommunicationsCommission ATIACHMENT STATIONKNON-FMANNOUNCEMENTS: "Ladies'andmen'snightuntil10bothnights."(Priceinfonnation) DA98-825 "LonghornSaloon....Food'sgreat.Theatmosphereisunparalleledinanyestablishment, andwannservice,greatemployees...."(Qualitativedescriptions) "Comingtotown?Whyshoparound?TryTratechTrophiesandCopyCenter.Tratech Trophieshaseverythingyouneed:copies,t-shirts,businesscards,plaques,ribbonsandmuch more.We'relocatedat....OpenMondaythroughFriday,10:30to7:00P.M,Saturday,9:30to 2:00P.MThenwnberis....orfaxusat....MentionKNONandreceivea10%discounton arrival."(Calltoactionandpriceinformation) "ThisisStevieD.withStevieD.ProductionsandStevieD'sall-newTuesdayNight HouseParty....yes,IhaveanewclubonTuesday.Thisclubholds1,800people.Abigtheater videoscreen.Stateoftheartlightsandsound."(Qualitativedescriptions) "TheRustyAnchorisaCajunseafoodrestaurant....Someofthespecialtydishesinclude awidevarietyofseafoodcookedtoorder,livecrawfish,andall-you-can-eatcatfishonSundays." (Impliedpriceinformation) "BlueSuedeShoe...TheonlystoreinDeepEllwnwhereyoucan[md...."(Notqualitative descriptionincontextof"sole"store) SAMPLEPROPOSEDANNOUNCEMENTS "Thisprogramissponsoredinpartby__.__isopenfrom__until . WednesdaythroughSundaynights.Thursdaynight__presentsthe__contest.Fridayand Saturdaynights haslivemusicwith__thisFridaynightand__inconcertthis Saturdaynight._ islocatedat_,andformoreinfonnationtheirnwnberis__.KNON thanks__fortheirsupportofcommunityradioat89.3FM." "GreatbluesprogrammingonKNONispossibleinpartbysupportfrom__. is abarbecueandbluesclubthatisopendailyfrom__until__.__servesbarbecue, beveragesandbluesdaily.Theyfeatureallbluesontheirjukebox,andonFridayandSaturday nightstheyhavelivebluesbandsinthehouse.ThisFridayandSaturday__comesto_. KNONthanks__fortheirsupportofourgreatbluesprogrammingwhich airs...." 13157
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-99-1280A1.pdf
      • Inresponsetothisinformation,weissuedaletterofinquirytoREBFdatedOctober7, 1997.-InitsOctober 24,1997,reply,REBFconcedesthatsponsoredunderwriting acknowledgements"similar"ItothosedescribedinourOctober7,1997letterofinquirywere broadcast.Thelicenseealsoprovidedalogindicatingthatthesubjectannouncementswere broadcastapproximately828timesduringtheJanuary1997throughOctober19'97periodin exchangeformonetaryortraderemuneration.WhileREBFessentiallyconcedesthatthecited announcementswerepromotionaloffor-profitentities,itexplainsthat,onthewhole,ithas endeavoredtoexercise"reasonable,goodfaithjudgments".inbroadcastingsponsorship identificationannouncementsthatcomplywiththeapplicableCommissionguidelines.Upon reviewofourletterofinquiry,however,itconcludedthat"changesneedtobemade,"and thereuponimplementedcorrectivemeasuresbyreplacingstationpersonnelassociatedwiththe announcementreviewprocess. Uponcarefulconsiderationoftherecordinthiscase,takingintoaccountthefull circumstancesincluding,thelicensee'sre?ponse,wefindthatREBFbroadcastimpermissible advertisementsforthebenefitoffor-profitentities,inapparentviolationofSection399Bofthe CommunicationsAct,�andSection73.503oftheCommission'sRules..Wefindthat.the announcementsarepromotionalinnature,throughtheirinclusionoflanguagethat.contains qualitativedescriptions,comparativelanguage,calls.toaction,inducementstobuy,orthat otherwiseexceedstheidentification-onlypurposeofunderwritingannouncementsbypromoting thegoodsorservicesoffOJ-profitentities. Althoughweacknowledgethatthelicenseehastakencorrectivemeasuresbyreplacing staffresponsibleforreviewingitsunderwritingannouncements,wemustalsoconsiderthatthese measureswere�nottakerr1lIltiltheapparentviolationswerefirstpointedoutbytheCommission. Astotheactsofthelicensee'sformerstaff,wenotethattheCommissionhasconsistentlyheld thatsuchfactorsasemployeeerrororignoranceofthepertinentstatuteandunderwritingrules willnotexcusealicenseefromitsobligationtooperateastationincompliancewiththeterms ofitsauthorizationandtheCommission'srules.Additionally,licenseescannotbeexcusedfrom responsibilityfortheactsoftheiremployees.EmpireBroadcastingCom.,25FCC2d68(1970). Accordingly,wefindthatREBFhasapparentlyviolated:(1)Section399Bofthe CommunicationsActandSection73.503oftheCommission'sRulesregardingpermissibledonor andunderwritingannouncementsonnoncommercialeducationalstations,forthereasonssetforth above.Fromtheinformation�supplied,itappearsthattheannouncementsmadeonbehalfof I WenotethatREBFdidnotindicatehowtheannouncements'textsdiffered,ifatall,from .thosesetforthinouraudiotapetranscript. 11209 FederalCommunicationsCommission DA99-1280 RandyCaseyWreckerService,Dial-a-Page,RagsdaleInsurance,FirearmsLimited,andD&R PittsburghPaintswerebroadcastapproximately828timesduringtheperiodJanuary1997through October1997.Accordingly,pursuanttoSection503(b)oftheCommunicationsActof1934,as amended.,RussellvilleEducationalBroadcastFoundation,licenseeofKMTC(FM),.Russellville, Arkansas,isherebyadvisedofitsapparentliabilityforaforfeitureoftwothousandfivehundred dollars($2,500.00)foritsapparent willful,repeatedviolationsof47U.S.C.Section399band Section73.503oftheCommission'sRules. Inassessingthismonetaryforfeiture,wehavetakenintoaccountthenature, circumstances,extentandgravityoftheviolations,thedegreeofculpability,aswellasthe station'spriorunblemishedenforcementhistory.Section503(b)(2)(D)oftheCommunications Actof1934,asamended,47U.S.C.Sec.503(b)(2)(D).Inthisconnection,webelievethatthe factsofthiscasearesubstantially�siinilarto�EconomicOpportunityBoardofClarkCounty,6 FCCRcd2034(MMB1991)(forfeitureof$3,000imposedforfirst-timeviolationinvolving similarlypromotionalannouncementsmadeduringseven-monthperiod).�Giventhese circumstances,webelievethataforfeitureof$2,500isappropriate.- Inregard tothisforfeitureproceeding,youareaffordedaperiodofthirty(30)craysfrom thedateofthisletter"toshow,inwriting,whyaforfeitUrepenaltyshouldnotbeimposedor shouldbereduced,ortopaytheforfeiture.Anyshowingastowhytheforfeitureshouldnotbe .imposedorshouldbereducedshallincludeadetailedfactualstatementandsuchdocumentation andaffidavitsasmaybepertinent."47C.F.RSection1.80(f)(3).Otherrelevantprovisionsof Section1.80aresummarizedintheattachmenttothisletter. . " FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION Enclosures 11210
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-99-1656A1.pdf
      • contendsthattheforfeitureamountof$2,500isexcessivebecauseits"incomeand/ortrade-outs frombusinessesaverages$2,460permonth,"andthattheforfeitureamountthusposesafinancial hardship. 4.Wehavereexaminedtheforfeitureimposedinviewofthestatutoryfactorssetforthin Section503(b(2)(D)oftheCommunicationsActpertainingtothenature,circumstances,extentand gravityoftheapparentviolations.Weaffinnthepriorfmdingthattheannouncementsmadeon behalfofprogramsponsorsinquestionconstitutedprohibitedpromotionaladvertisementsin apparentviolationoftheCommunicationsActandtheCommission'snoncommercialrulesand policies.forthereasonssetforthbelow,wefurtherconcludethat,inthiscase,rescissionor reductionofthe$2,500monetaryforfeitureproposedintheNALisunwarranted. 5.AlthoughREBfassertsthatitsexpostfactoeffortsatachievingrulecompliancewarrant forfeiturereductionorrescission,itcitesnoprecedentinsupportofthisproposition.Initially,we mustnotethatlicenseesareobligatedtocomplywiththeapplicablestatutesandCommissionrules governingtheconductoftheirbroadcasts,aIldthattheirsubsequentremedialeffortsdonotnullify orexcusepriorviolations.SeeGaffueyBroadcasting,Inc.,23fCC2d912,913(1970),citing ElevenTenBroadcastingCom.,33fCC706(1962).Whilealicensee'svoluntaryandadvanced disclosuretotheCommissionofaruleviolationmay,inappropriateinstances,justifymitigationof aforfeiture,thatfactorisnotpresentinthiscase.As�REBfacknowledges,itseffortstowardrule compliancewerenotundertakenuntilaftertheviolationsoccurred,andwerepointedouttothe licenseebytheCommissionitself.Consequently,REBf'sargumentiswithoutmerit. 6.REBffurthercontendsthatthemonetaryfineshouldbereducedorrescindedbecauseits ruleviolationswereneither"willful"nor"repeated."However,itisnotpertinentwhethera licensee'sactsoromissionswerespecificallyintendedtoviolatethelawbecausetheterm"willful," asusedinSection503(b)oftheAct,hasbeeninterpretedtomeansimplythattheactsoromissions werecommittedknowingly.SeeLiabilityofCateCommunicationsCom.,60RR2d1386(1986), citingMidwestRadioTelevision,Inc.,45fCC1137(1963).Inthiscase,REBfdoesnotcontend thattheunderwritingannouncementsinquestionwerebroadcastwithoutitsoritsstaffs knowledge.further,inviewofthehundredsofbroadcastrepetitionsoftheseannouncementsover anapproximateten-monthperiod,thereisampleevidenceinthiscasethattheviolationswere,in fact,"repeated."]Moreover,REBF'srepeatedbroadcastofthedeficientunderwriting announcementscannotbesaidtoreflectanisolatedlapseofjudgmentorsingleactofnegligence. C�RumbautManagement.Inc.,DA95-2303(MMB1995)(minimalforfeitureforviolationof 1 TheActspecifiesthiscriterionasanalternativejustificationforassessingforfeitures.SeeLiabilityofCate CommunicationsCorn.,supra.SeealsoHaleBroadcastingCom.,79FCC2d169,171(1980)(interpreting "repeatedlyntomean"simplymorethan once.II) 13509 FederalCommunicationsCommission DA99-1656 anti-lotteryadvertisingruleappropriatewhere.therewereonlythreesuchinstances,twoofwhich werebaseduponprohibitedmentionof"casino"duringaliveinterview). 7.Finally,REBFarguesthattheforfeitureamountinthiscaseisexcessivebecauseit exceedsitsaveragemonthlyincome,andposesafmancialhardship.REBF,however,hasfailedto provideevidencetosupportthatclaim.Inthisregard,REBFdidnotsubmitaprofit-and-loss statementasspecificallyrequiredtodemonstratetheinabilitytopay.SeeParagraphI(B)ofthe .AttachmenttotheNAL.SeealsoLiabilityofSpringtownEducationalBroadcaStingFoundation,7 FCCRcd2588(MMB1992).Consequently,wehavenobasistoreduceorrescindthefineunder thisfactor.Weare,however,willingtoentertainarequestforaninstallmentplan.IfREBFwishes toarrangeapaymentplan,itshouldaddressitsrequestto:ReginaDorsey,Chief,Credit&Debt ManagementCenter,FinancialOperationsDivision,OfficeofManagingDirector,Federal CommunicationsCommission,44512thStreet,S.W.,Washington,D.C.20554. 8.Inviewoftheforegoing,REBF'sJuly28,1999responsetoourJuly1,1999,NAL,in theamountof$2,500,requestingrescissionorreductionoftheforfeitureamountISDENIED. Furthennore,ITISORDEREDthat,pursuanttoSection503(b)oftheCommunicationsActof 1934,asamended,47U.S.C.Sec.503(b),RussellvilleEducationalBroadcastFoundation FORFEITtotheUnitedStatesthesumofTwoThousandFiveHundredDollars($2,500)forthe willfulandrepeatedviolationofSection399BoftheCOnllnunicationsActof1934,asamended,47 .U.S.C.Sec.399b,andSection73.503(d)oftheCommission'sRules,47C.F.R.Sec.73.503(d),as describedabove.RussellvilleEducationalBroadcastFoundationmaytakeanyofthestepsoutlined intheattachmenttothisletterregardingpaymentoftheforfeiturepursuanttoSection1.80ofthe Commission'sRules. 9.TheMass�MediaBureauwillsendbyCertifiedMail--ReturnReceiptRequested,copies ofthisMemorandumOpinionandOrderandForfeitureOrdertoRussellvilleEducational BroadcastFoundation. FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION RoyJ.Stewart .Chief,MassMediaBureau 13510
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-197A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-197A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-197A1.txt
      • 1. In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part the January 31, 2001 application for review filed by Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("Arnold"), licensee of Station KNEC-FM, of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau in this proceeding. Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``the Rules'') the Enforcement Bureau ("EB") found Arnold liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $14,000 for willful violation of the following sections of the Rules: 11.35 (failure to install and maintain operable Emergency Alert System (``EAS'') equipment), 73.1350 (failure to have a transmitter control system in place which would allow the transmitter to
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-90A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-90A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-90A1.txt
      • Action for Children's Television v. FCC , 58 F.3d 654, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (``ACT III''). These special justifications included the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, and broadcast's ``invasive'' nature. Id. See also Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 15 FCC Rcd 303, 305-06 (1999) (``courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission's indecency standard''). Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1989, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 100-459, Section 608, 102 Stat. 2186, 2228 (1988).
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-9A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-9A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-01-9A1.txt
      • 503 of the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), the base forfeiture amount is $10,000 for ATC's lighting violation. The base forfeiture amount is $3,000 for each of ATC's 26 instances of failure to file required forms or information (i.e. failure to file an application for antenna structure registration (two violations) and failure to notify the Commission of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-31A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-31A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-31A1.txt
      • amount. Moreover, in view of the intentional nature of Peninsula's current violations, we do not find that Peninsula's past broadcast record warrants a downward adjustment. Accordingly, we find that the proposed $140,000 forfeiture is appropriate and should be imposed. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, Peninsula Communications, Inc. FORFEIT to the United States the sum of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) for violating Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 301, by operating the seven captioned translator stations subsequent to midnight May 19, 2001. 10. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-03-109A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-03-109A1.pdf
      • appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.'' The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for operation at an unauthorized location. However, a significant upward adjustment is justified in this case since Western's violation continued for three and a half years after WTB informed Western that the tower ``may have'' a
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-227A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-227A1.pdf
      • U.S.C. �� 301 and 319(c); 47 C.F.R. � 73.33(b). We will not impose a forfeiture for KRI's unauthorized construction in 1999 because when, as here, the violation involves a station not yet licensed, no forfeiture penalty can be imposed if the violation occurred more than one year prior to issuance of the Notice of Apparent Liability. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(c). KRI's argument was originally based, in part, on its November 20, 2000, court case. As we have already granted tolling treatment for the court case, that matter could not provide a basis for any additional time through waiver. See Birach Broadcasting Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 1414 (2003), petition for recon. pending. See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FCC, 259 F.2d
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-69A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-69A1.pdf
      • 2001 Permit. Based on these facts, we issue this Notice of Apparent Liability for forfeiture in the amount of $4,000, the base amount for operation at an unauthorized location. We find no facts warranting upward or downward adjustment in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.80, KM Radio of St. Johns, L.L.C., licensee, Station KWKM(FM) St. Johns, Arizona, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1350(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �73.1350(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-206A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-206A1.pdf
      • OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: September 5, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that W.S. Communications, L.L.C. (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations KWGL(FM), Ouray, Colorado and KAVP(AM), Colona, Colorado (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(1)(i), 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6), 73.2080(c)(6)(iii), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv) and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') self-assessment, record keeping, recruitment source information,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-241A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-241A1.pdf
      • OF Apparent Liability for Forfeiture Adopted: October 8, 2008 Released: December 30, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing a joint statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') issued pursuant to Sections 309(k) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), we find that Urban Radio I, LLC (the ``Licensee''), licensee of Stations WLIB(AM) and WBLS-FM, New York, New York (the ``Stations''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.2080(c)(3), 73.2080(c)(5), 73.2080(c)(6)(iv), and 73.3526(e)(7) of the Rules by failing to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (``EEO'') self-assessment, record keeping, interviewee information, and public file
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-250A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-250A1.pdf
      • Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed June 9, 2008, by Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc. IS DENIED, that the Enforcement Bureau's May 9, 2008, decision IS AFFIRMED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, that Christian Voice of Central Ohio, Inc., licensee of then-noncommercial educational Station WCVZ(FM), South Zanesville, Ohio, FORFEIT to the United States the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) within 20 days from the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting advertisements in violation of Section 399B of the Act, 47
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-10-102A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-10-102A1.pdf
      • to Instruction to Form 303-S-Application for Renewal of License for Broadcast Stations.'' A broadcast station requires an authorization from the Commission to operate. See 47 U.S.C. � 301. The base forfeiture amounts for failure to file a required form and for operation without an instrument of authorization are $3,000 and $10,000, respectively. See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113-15 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(4), note to paragraph (b)(4), Section 1. See, e.g., College Wesleyan Church (NAL), DA 06-2455 (MB Dec. 6, 2006) ($1500 forfeiture proposed for apparent Section 73.3539(a) violation where the license renewal application was
    • http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-72A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-72A1.pdf
      • conclusively demonstrates that it completed construction prior to the expiration of the construction period, notwithstanding the tardy filing of the license to cover application. We note that the staff may also issue Notices of Apparent Liability for ``failure to file a required form'' as authorized by Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 1.80 of the Rules, for such violations of covering license application filing deadlines or take other enforcement action. The Bureau action admonishing CCBL for its two-day tardiness in filing the License Application recognizes the ``strict completion'' policy which underlies Section 73.3598(e) and we uphold this sanction on this basis. 12. Automatic Downgrade. Note 4 to Section 73.3573 of the Rules does
    • http://www.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html
      • http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 16. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 17. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html#skippagenav 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/Welcome.html 19. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/foiahandbook.pdf 20. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/quickfactsheet.pdf 21. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/cfr.html 22. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 23. http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gils/index.html 24. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_guide07/text_foia.pdf 25. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/reading-room-cert.pdf 26. http://www.fcc.gov/portalsdir.html 27. http://www.fcc.gov/ 28. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 29. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 30. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 31. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/circ_items.cgi 32. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/ 33. http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/ 34. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-77A1.pdf 35. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.18.pdf 36. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.61.pdf 37. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4050.pdf 38. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4140.pdf 39. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4266.pdf 40. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4267.pdf 41. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4280.pdf 42. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf 43. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.pdf 44. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97218.pdf 45. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.80.pdf 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00072.doc 47. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-53A1.pdf 48. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/fcc99124.txt 49. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-63A1.pdf 50. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf 51. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-401A1.pdf 52. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_eeo_policy_statement.html 53. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_anti_harassment_statement.html 54. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/2000/fcc00207.doc 55. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1999/fcc99354.txt 56. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/80-621.pdf 57. http://www.fcc.gov/statelocal/recommendation1.html 58. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1980.pdf 59. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1986.pdf 60. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1990.pdf 61. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1991.pdf 62. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1992.pdf 63. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1992.pdf 64. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-rev-1992.pdf 65. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1974.pdf 66. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1984.pdf 67. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1991.pdf 68. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-rev-1991.pdf 69. http://www.fcc.gov/osec/ 70. http://www.fcc.gov/ocbo/ 71. https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/coresWeb/publicHome.do 72. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284563A1.pdf 73. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-commission-meeting-room-usage.pdf 74. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-federal-advisory-committee.pdf 75. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-foia-management.pdf
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/MB/Databases/source_code/amstability.html
      • /* standard variation */ { ftol = 0.05; /* 5% under */ ptol = 3.0; /* 3 degrees */ } if(inc == 1) /* standard variation */ { ftol = 0.04; /* 4% under */ ptol = 2.40; /* 2.4 degrees */ } if(inc == 2) /* standard variation */ { ftol = 0.03; /* 3% under */ ptol = 1.80; /* 1.8 degrees */ } if(inc == 3) /* standard variation */ { ftol = 0.02; /* 2% under */ ptol = 1.20; /* 1.2 degrees */ } if(inc == 4) /* standard variation */ { ftol = 0.01; /* 1% under */ ptol = 0.6; /* 0.6 degrees */ } if(inc == 5) /* critical ? */ { ftol
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/97-276.pdf
      • producing radio program material are classified under another SIC number.27 The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992.28 Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 1992.29 As of March, 1997, official Commission records indicate that 12,128 radio stations were operating.30 Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/97-290.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/97-290.pdf
      • for purposes of implementing Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires us to identify market entry barriers and to prescribe regulations to eliminate those barriers. Additionally, in our Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 96-16, In the Matter of Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rules and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), we invited comment as to whether relief should be afforded to stations: (1) based on small staff and what size staff would be considered sufficient for relief, e.g., 10 or fewer full-time employees; (2) based on operation in a small market; or (3) based on operation
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/TABALL02.pdf
      • Points 448,6701,984,728 411,4642,844,8623,900,202 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.42 Top 30 as % of International Points 89.7% 96.8% 98.3% 95.9% 97.9% 1 Western Europe 133,6831,077,115 165,1771,375,9751,984,659 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.27 2 Africa 3,460 9,048 0 12,508 1,160 0.38 0.32 0.80 0.64 3 Middle East 3,579 8,238 150 11,967 502 0.43 0.23 0.25 0.32 4 Caribbean 11,135 12,833 4,032 28,000 11,983 0.66 1.14 1.80 2.14 5 North and Central America 213,206 399,536 27,214 639,956 983,965 0.50 0.44 0.35 0.81 6 South America 19,357 43,284 20,814 83,455 108,394 0.30 0.20 0.19 0.36 7 Asia 45,743 379,571 134,060 559,374 763,014 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.24 8 Oceania 13,148 51,650 59,657 124,455 45,277 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.17 9 Eastern Europe 5,359 3,119 1 8,479 1,248 1.72 1.08 1.10
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/fmbc.pdf
      • COORDINATES POWER (LAT) 30 14 00 30 59 08 29 07 25 29 04 41 29 04 23 29 06 43 31 19 10 31 19 10 31 19 28 (LON) 111 02 00 110 11 25 110 56 45 110 51 26 110 51 06 110 55 58 110 51 36 110 57 36 110 56 41 0 2.04 1.80 50.00 9.51 5.00 10.00 30.50 1.11 3.02 XHNI-FM 286B 31 19 52 110 51 11 5.20 XHNES-FM 290C 31 19 01 110 51 29 15.36 Sa; Luis Rio Colo. XHSLR-FM 300B 32 26 21 114 45 21 -4.36 XHITA-FM 243B 31 51 50 112 50 55 0.02 Sonoita TAMAULIPAS LOCATION Ciudad Victoria Ciudad Victoria Matamoros Mat amoros Matamoros Nuevo Laredo
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
      • Billed Revenues per Minute 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Percent Change 1998 to 2003 Australia $1.25 $1.09 $1.01 $0.68 $0.30 $0.42 $0.55 $0.51 $0.38 $0.27 $0.25 -39.9% Brazil 1.06 0.97 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.67 0.57 0.45 0.25 0.22 0.14 -78.8 Canada 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.16 -48.4 China 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 0.18 -80.5 Colombia 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 0.11 -85.2 Dominican Republic 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.16 -64.7 Egypt 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 0.21 -78.8 El Salvador 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files07/CREPOR07.PDF
      • 1 2 3 4 Other Aruba 58 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 $0 $190,864 0.0 0.00.0100.0 0.0 $0 Bahamas, The 1,06865.8 6.9 0.021.3 5.9 $0 $1,074,691 6.5 8.90.071.9 12.7 $0 Barbados 275 0.089.5 0.010.5 0.0 $0 $204,085 0.074.70.025.3 0.0 $0 Bermuda 2,679 0.0 2.7 0.068.0 29.3 $0 $1,960,906 0.010.40.079.1 10.5 $0 Cayman Islands 8,958 0.0 7.0 0.061.3 31.7 $0 $3,048,977 0.0 1.80.026.5 71.8 $0 Cuba 565 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 99.6 $0 $5,908,296 0.0 0.00.079.4 20.6 $0 Dominica 32100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $14,300100.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 $0 Dominican Republic 4,313 6.672.6 0.0 4.1 16.7 $0 $3,418,69918.661.70.011.2 8.4 $0 French Overseas Departments 32 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 $0 $40,944 0.0 0.00.0100.0 0.0 $0 Grenada 199.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $0 $15,000100.0
    • http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/ssi/audio_pub.htm
      • was denied, $9,000 forfeiture order was affirmned. October 20, 2008 Luis A Meija and MSG Radio, Inc., for assigmentnt of license for WIAC (FM), San Juan, PR, Forfeiture Order, DA 08-2315, released October 20, 2008. [ [983]PDF | [984]Word ]. $3,000 forfeiture order for not including copies of relevant agreements for the sale of the station, in violation of Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Commission's rules. October 16, 2008 Community Bible Chuech, for Special Temporary Authority and License for FM translator W230BH, Montauk, NY, Letter, DA 08-2308, released October 16, 2008. [ [985]PDF | [986]Word ]. License application granted. October 16, 2008 Calvary Chapel of Brandon, Inc. (WQRD-LP, Gibsonton, FL) and Iglesia Cristiana La Nueva Jerusalem, Inc. (WVVD-LP, East Tampa, FL) ,
    • http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
      • an order to show cause pursuant to this section, the rules of procedure in Title 47, part 1, subpart A, 1.91-1.95 of this chapter shall apply. Note 2: Nothing in this section is intended to prevent the Commission from initiating show cause or forfeiture proceedings on its own motion; Provided, however, that show cause proceedings and forfeiture proceedings pursuant to 1.80(g) of this chapter will not be initiated by such motion until the affected parties are given an opportunity to respond to the Commission's charges. Note 3: Forfeiture proceedings are generally nonhearing matters conducted pursuant to the provisions of 1.80(f) of this chapter (Notice of Apparent Liability). Petitioners who contend that the alternative hearing procedures of 1.80(g) of this chapter should
    • http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
      • to show cause pursuant to this section, the rules of procedure in Title 47, part 1, subpart A, ��1.91�1.95 of this chapter shall apply. Note 2 to �76.7: Nothing in this section is intended to prevent the Commission from initiating show cause or forfeiture proceedings on its own motion; Provided, however, that show cause proceedings and forfeiture proceedings pursuant to �1.80(g) of this chapter will not be initiated by such motion until the affected parties are given an opportunity to respond to the Page 15of 243 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 5/6/2011 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a0b1c7045abd9e3f08f6d3233a640e58&rg... Commission's charges. Note 3 to �76.7: Forfeiture proceedings are generally nonhearing matters conducted pursuant to the provisions of �1.80(f) of this chapter (Notice of Apparent Liability). Petitioners who
    • http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prlpfm_rpt_economic_study.pdf
      • stations only had 6, by 2009, this same market, Gainesville, had 11 LPFM stations. Table 2 Average Number of LPFM Stations in a Market by Size of the Arbitron Metro Markets Ranked by Size 2005 2007 2009 1 -10 1.70 2.40 2.60 11 -20 1.60 1.40 1.70 21 -30 1.10 2.00 2.10 31 -40 1.20 1.40 1.50 41 -50 1.20 1.80 1.80 51 -60 1.40 2.00 2.40 61 -70 1.40 1.50 1.40 71 -80 0.50 0.80 2.10 81 -90 1.70 2.70 1.90 91 -100 0.80 1.10 1.40 1 -100 1.26 1.71 1.89 101 -110 1.60 2.10 2.20 111 -120 1.40 1.50 1.50 121 -130 0.70 0.90 0.80 131 -140 1.20 1.80 2.10 141 -150 1.00 1.00 1.00 151 -160 1.40 1.50
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/rockymtn.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/rockymtn.wp
      • rules, regulations, and final orders of several agencies. Section 2342 of that act vests the courts of appeals with jurisdiction to review a final agency order. 7. In forfeiture proceedings, the FCC first issues "a citation of the violation charged" and provides "a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview with an official of the Commission." 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(d). The RMR administrative process terminated at this point because RMR stopped marketing the Spirit II. If an alleged violator subsequently engages in the prohibited conduct, however, the FCC may proceed to impose a monetary forfeiture, under either of two separate tracks, each with its own set of procedures and provisions for judicial review. In the more commonly-used track, the FCC
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/99-1463.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/99-1463.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/99-1463.pdf
      • and desist" from that activity. Jerry Szoka, FCC 98D-3, 1998 FCC LEXIS 4563, *1 (1998) (ALJ summary decision). The order also indicated that the Commission was considering "whether ... Szoka should forfeit $11,000"--the maximum daily penalty (adjusted for inflation) for a continuing violation of the Act. Id. at *1, *8 (citing 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(C)); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(5) (detailing how to adjust forfeitures for inflation). The Chief of the Commission's Compliance and Information Bureau moved for summary decision of the issues identified in the show-cause order. Although Szoka conceded he had no license to operate Grid Radio, he objected to the summary judgment motion, arguing he had no obligation to comply with Commission licensing rules because the microbroadcasting
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/01-1485.pdf
      • case, the Commission issues a notice of apparent liability to the alleged violator, affording it only the opportunity to show, in writing, why no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. Id. � 503(b)(4). The Commission may then issue an order direct- ing payment of the proposed forfeiture, reducing the amount to be paid, or canceling the forfeiture altogether. 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(f)(4). If the order becomes final and the forfeiture subject refuses to pay, then Communications Act section 504(a) permits the Commission to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for commencement of a civil action to recover the forfeiture in a district court, where the forfeiture subject is entitled to a trial de novo. 47 U.S.C. � 504(a). The Commission
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/03-1118-070604.pdf
      • and conditions of any TTT instrument or authorization issued by the Commission.'' 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(A). FCC regulations authorize the Commission to assess a fine of up to $120,000 for each such individual violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum fine of $1.2 million ``for any single act or failure to act.'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2). Factors the Commission shall ``take into account'' in determining the size of the fine include ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the viola- tion,'' as well as ``ability to pay.'' 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(D). The FCC imposed a fine of $6 million in this case because it considered SBC's refusal to provide shared-transport service to complete intraLATA toll calls
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2005/03-1147-051305.pdf
      • on to find that SBC had "failed to offer shared transport" for intraLATA toll service in the five former Ameritech states, and that this failure violated � 56 of the merger conditions. In the Matter of SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 19,923, 19,923-24, �� 1-2 (2002) ("Forfeiture Order"). As authorized by 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(2)(B) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.80(b)(2), (b)(5) (2002), the Commission imposed on SBC the statutory maximum fine of $1.2 million for each of the five states, for a total of $6 million. See Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 19,934-37, �� 22-27. SBC petitioned for review, and we upheld the Commission. SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 373 F.3d 140, 151-52 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("SBC I"). In
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/programdiversity090002.pdf
      • divided by the total number of hours or prime time programming. This determines the average number of program types during prime time. Perfect imitation would equal one while perfect diversity would equal three (p. 404). 22 Horizontal Diversity Index 2.722.78 2.822.82 2.68 2.84 2.602.58 2.50 2.412.452.36 2.27 2.452.45 2.23 2.14 2.50 2.32 2.43 2.68 2.52 2.88 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year Diversity Indes Diversity Index This index tells a slightly different story than the other two. In the early time period, the fluctuations in horizontal diversity reflect the fluctuations in diversity
    • http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
      • Yearbook (1999). Newspaper characteristics not available in all markets. 30 Table 2: Overall Evidence of Preference Externalities Circulation per Capita Circulation per Household 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) MSA Pop (Mil.) 0.005 0.003 0.009 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.015 0.027 0.014 (2.74)** (1.99)* (3.09)** (1.99)* (1.80) (0.88) (2.88)** (3.11)** (2.57)* MSA Median Inc. (000) -0.001 0.002 -0.001 (0.96) (1.68) (0.46) MSA Fr. College Degree 0.230 0.098 0.144 (3.43)** (1.21) (2.00)* MSA Fr. Under Age 30 -0.884 -0.303 -0.319 (7.47)** (2.77)** (1.11) MSA Fr. Over Age 65 4.1603 2.2409 2.988 (10.61)** (5.12)** (2.59)* Constant 0.199 0.206 0.238 0.192 0.220 0.232 0.532 0.632 0.553 (41.41)** (6.45)** (34.08)** (4.01)**